IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
INDERJEET SINGH, PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
Vikash Sharma Son Of Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma - Petitioner
Vs.
The Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8907, 9385, 9510, 9512 Of 2023
Decided On : 31-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging selection process - Petitioners participated in selection process without objection and later sought to challenge it due to alleged technical faults in typing test - Court held that participation precludes challenge to process - Petitioners did not raise any complaints during the examination - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Legal Principle - Candidates participating in selection processes cannot later contest those processes if they did not raise objections at the time. (Paras 7-8)
(C) Estoppel - Petitioners are estopped from challenging the process after voluntarily signing satisfaction certificates regarding equipment functionality. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners applied for the post of System Assistant after advertisement and participated in written and type tests. They later alleged technical faults in equipment and sought a fresh test.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioners' claims as they had signed satisfaction certificates and did not raise any complaints during the tests.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners could challenge the selection process after participating and if technical faults justified a re-test.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that participation in the selection process without objection precludes a later challenge, reaffirming that candidates cannot contest selection processes after being declared unsuccessful.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Order :
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions with regard to fault in the computer during typing test has already been considered and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.12895/2024 (Ajay Meena and Ors. Vs. The Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur and Anr.) wherein on 01.10.2024 following orders was passed:-
“1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:
“(i)Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof the respondent be consider the petitioners for appear in type writing test on computer who shall be scheduled very soon.
(ii)Issue a writ order or direction to the respondent for consider the representation given of the petitioner and to be included in typewriting test on computer as per corrigendum dated 02.06.2024.
(iii) Issue a writ order or direction to the respondent after included in type writing test on computer as per corrigendum dated 02.06.2024 and after passing of said test petitioners be appointed for the post of System Assistant.
(iv) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper, be passed in the interest of justice and to grant adequate relief to the humble petitioners.”
2. The respondent(s) issued advertisement dated 18.12.2023 for recruitment to the post of System Assistant, 2023. In pursuant to the said advertisement all petitioners applied for the said post for which written test (first phase) was conducted by the respondent(s) on 03.03.2024. All the petitioners appeared in the said written test and result of the written test was declared by the respondent(s) on 19.03.2024. In the second phase, the type test was held by the respondent(s) on 18.05.2024 in which all petitioners appeared, however, after participating in the written test and type test they submitted representations on various dates i.e. 29.05.2024, 19.06.2024, 30.05.2024 and 05.06.2024 to the respondent(s) for conducting fresh type test on the ground that the respondent(s) have issued a corrigendum on 02.06.2024 for conducting the fresh type test for SC category (women candidates).
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the respondent(s) are going to conduct the type test for SC category(women candidates) and one more chance be given to the petitioners along with those candidates to appear in the type test. Learned counsel further submits that there were technical faults with the computer and keyboard provided to the petitioners for which they were not responsible and they failed to type the answers properly in the said type test.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s)opposed the writ petition and submitted that there is no fault on their part to conduct the type test and after examination all the candidates signed the form with regard to their satisfaction that their peripherals and systems were working properly, more particularly, in para no.5 of the reply it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent(s) as under:
“That it is pertinent to mention that prior to starting of typewriting test on computer, all the candidates were being directed time and again by way of announcement to please check all the additional equipment’s like monitor, keyboard, mouse etc. of the computer and also to click of the icon “Peripheral Check” and do the practice of typing. All the candidates checked the computers & additional equipment’s and also practice typing before the starting of typewriting test on computer. In case, any candidate raise any objection regarding non-working of their respective computer or any of the additional equipment thereof, the same was attended immediately and required follow up action of changing the computer or equipment there of was taken. After verifying that all the candidates have checked their computers and its additional equipments, the type writing test on computer was started. After examination, all the candidates verified the
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot later challenge it based on alleged faults if they did not raise objections during the process.
Candidates who participate in a selection process without raising objections are estopped from later challenging its fairness.
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot later challenge its fairness or legality.
Candidates must report grievances during exams; failure to do so may bar post-exam relief, establishing that immediate protests are necessary for claims of technical errors.
The marks obtained at various stages of the selection process are not reflective of the final merit of a candidate, but considered for further participation in the next round.
The court upheld that technical issues during an examination, addressed by the respondent, do not warrant a retake if the candidate fails to meet the cut-off marks.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.