AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with
the following prayers.
"It is therefore, prayed that:
i) by an appropriate order or directions, the RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Mains Examination 2016 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and be cancelled and the respondents be directed to hold a fresh examination as per the syllabus of 2013.
ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon''ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
Iii) Cost of the writ may be awarded to the petitioner."
Mr. Sushil Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that though while issuing advertisement dated
28.04.2016, Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide press note
dated 23.06.2016 announced that the syllabus applicable for the
earlier Examination, 2013 shall remain in vogue, for the ensuing
examination of 2016; however vide notification dated 29.09.2016,
the Commission has changed the syllabus.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondents - Commission cannot change the syllabus in the mid
of the process of Selection/recruitment. He asserted that the new
syllabus brought into effect vide press note dated 29.09.2016, at
least 30% part is beyond the syllabus, which was applicable for
the Examination of 2013. He contended that as a result of change
of syllabus, the petitioner''s right has been adversely effected and
such action otherwise against the settled proposition of law that
the Rules of appointment and selection criteria cannot be
changed, once the process has begun.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the
arguments.
It is not in dispute that the press note dated 29.09.2016 has
been released after conducting and declaring of result of
Preliminary Examination. It is also not in dispute that the Main
Examinations were conducted on 27.03.2017.
In view of the above factual backdrop, it cannot be said that
the respondent - Commission has changed the syllabus after
commencement of the selection process; particularly because the
syllabus, which has been changed is only for Mains Examination,
2016 and such change has been given effect to after completion of
the Preliminary Examinations and declaration of result thereof.
The petitioner; including all other candidates were having six
months time at their disposal to equip themselves with the new
course.
The petitioner''s argument that the course/syllabus cannot be
changed, once the process has been commenced, is not applicable
in the present facts inasmuch as the press note dated 29.09.2016
has been issued much prior to conducting the Main Examination.
In considered opinion of this Court Preliminary Examination and
Mains are two separate stages of the process.
Apart from the above, the petitioner has participated in the
Main Examination, 2017 without lodgning any protest or demur
and has raised grievance only after being unsuccessful in the
exams. As unsuccessful candidate, having participated in the
process is estopped from laying challenge to the same on the
principles of acquiescence.
There is no force in the present writ petition and the same is
thus dismissed.