Kanhaiya Lal Verma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition stating that the petitioner participated in the selection process for the Post of Driver (Fire) cum FMO

which was advertised vide advertisement dated 30.12.2015. His name has not placed in the selected list and submits that he should have been selected

and prays that he should be provided videography of the driving test and also the marks obtained by the other candidates as the petitioner perform very

well. It is his submission that despite his best performance he has been provided lesser marks and there are other candidates who evidently performed

more poor to the petitioner but they have been provided marks higher than the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions.

It is a case where a candidate who has failed in the selection, is showing his grudge against the selection process after participating therein.

In case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Surender Singh and Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 67 is held as under:-

17.The position noticed above would indicate that the entire grievance with which the Petitioners had approached the High Court was on claiming to

be aggrieved by Clause Nos. 25 and 26 contained in the Advertisement No. 1/2006 issued for recruitment of Assistant Teacher (Primary) for the

benefit of the Appellant MCD. In order to appreciate the same in its correct perspective, it would be appropriate to take note of the impugned Clause

Nos. 25 and 26 which read as hereunder:

The Board has full discretion to fix minimum qualifying marks for selection for each category i.e. SC/ST etc. of post in order to achieve qualitative

selection and to pick up the best talent available.

The marks obtained by the candidate in written examination will not be disclosed in any case.

18.From a perusal of the said Clause it is noticed that though under the very Clause there is no cut-off marks specified, Clause 25 would, however,

provide the full discretion to the DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks for selection. In the instant case, keeping in view that the recruitment

was for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and also taking note of the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier petition requiring the

maintenance of minimum standards, the DSSSB while preparing the select list had stopped the selection at a point which was indicated as the cut-off

percentage. In a circumstance where Clause 25 was depicted in the Advertisement No. 1/2006, when the private Respondents herein and the other

Petitioners before the High Court were responding to the said Advertisement, if at all they had a grievance that the Clause is arbitrary and might

affect their right ultimately since no minimum marks that is to be obtained has been indicated therein, they were required to assail the same at that

stage. On the other hand, despite being aware of the Clause providing discretion to DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks, they have

participated in the selection process by appearing for the qualifying examination without raising any protest. In that circumstance, the principle of

approbate and reprobate would apply and the private Respondents herein or any other candidate who participated in the process cannot be heard to

complain in that regard.

It is no doubt true that the select list was concluded at the particular cut-off point wherein the last selected candidate under the unreserved

category had obtained 89.25 per cent. The said decision had been taken by the DSSSB to ensure the minimum standard of the teachers that would be

recruited and the Appellant herein being the recruiting agency in any event, did not have objection. In any event, it is not the case of the Petitioners

that they had obtained higher marks than the candidate who was shown as the last candidate in the merit list. If that was the position and when it is

noticed that the Appellant and the other writ Petitioners had secured lesser percentage of marks than the last candidate included in the merit list, there

could not have been any further consideration whatsoever in the course of judicial review. To that extent, the learned Single Judge, from the

observations as noticed above has kept in view all aspects of the matter and in that light had arrived at the conclusion that no error was committed

either by the DSSSB or the Appellant herein.

The petitioner cannot be allowed to become a judge of his own selection and the assessment has to be done by others and not by his own self relating

to the comparative performance of the candidates.

The writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed.