AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Monga, J
As the issue involved in above two writ petitions arise out of same advertisement, thus, both the petitions are being decided together vide this common order.
For convenience, facts are being referred from CWP No.464/2013.
Under challenge is an advertisement dated 08.09.2011 for the post of Fireman and the subsequent provisional select list dated 30.09.2013, wherein the names of the petitioners have not been included.
Briefly speaking, facts as pleaded in the petition are that the respondent No.3 issued an advertisement dated 08.09.2011, inviting applications for the post of Fireman. Clause 3(ii) therein stated that, as per the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, the educational qualification required for appointment is secondary school education from the Board of Secondary Education or its equivalent, along with a six-month basic elementary fireman training course. Note 2 of Clause 3 provided relaxation for completing the basic elementary fire training after appointment. Note 2 further stated that preference could be given to incumbents who had experience with a government organization/board and to those pursuing the qualification for the basic elementary fire training course.
4.1 After completing the six-month course, the bona fide certificate was issued by the Director of the Institution on 03.02.2012. The petitioners also completed a one-year Diploma in Fire Safety Engineering from July 2011 to June 2012 at the National Institute of Fire and Safety Engineering, Nagpur. The National Institute of Fire and Safety Engineering issued a diploma certificate in Fire Safety Engineering, dated 04.07.2012.
4.2 Pursuant to the selection process call letters to the candidates for the physical efficiency test and practical test were issued. The tests were held from 03.01.2013 to 23.01.2013. Petitioners were not invited for the same. Consequently, they approached respondent No.2 on 03.01.2013, submitted a representation, and requested that their candidature be considered for participation in the selection process. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the respondents' inaction in not providing them the opportunity to participate in the selection process and by the issuance of the provisional merit list, without considering their representation, have filed these petitions.
Stand taken by the respondents in their reply inter alia is that the petitioners failed to secure marks equal to or higher than the respective cut-off marks in their categories. Therefore, they have no right to claim appointment to the post of Fireman. The petitioners, having failed to meet the minimum cut-off marks in their respective categories, lack any right to challenge the selection process or claim appointment to the post of Fireman.
In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the case file.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the petitioners’ claim pertains to the selection process for the post in question, which was initiated through an advertisement dated 08.09.2011. The petitioners seek to challenge the outcome of this selection process, asserting that they should have been appointed to the post, being more meritorious than the ones selected.
Vide an order dated 19.08.2013 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners were provisionally allowed to participate in the interview, but no effective interim protection was granted to the petitioners to reserve any posts for them.
At this belated stage, it is not feasible to assess the merits of the petitioners’ performance, especially since the records related to the selection process for unsuccessful candidates are no longer available. As per well-established legal principles, an unsuccessful candidate is not entitled to challenge the entire selection process once it has reached its final conclusion, solely on the ground of failing to succeed in the competition. The petitioners, therefore, cannot seek to annul or alter the selection process simply because they were not selected.
In the absence of selection records, it is not possible to substantiate the petitioners’ claim of being more meritorious than the selected candidates, particularly those who have already been serving on the post for the past almost 10 years. Furthermore, none of the selected candidates have been made a party to these proceedings. Same is a significant omission. Moreover, as there are currently no vacant posts available, it would not be appropriate to displace the existing candidates, especially after such a long period of service. Be that as it may, since the relevant records are not available, it is not possible to verify the petitioners’ merit or rank in comparison to the selected candidates.
Additionally, I find myself in agreement with the respondents' position, as outlined in their reply, which has not been contradicted by the petitioners.
In the premise, the writ petitions lack merit and no relief can be granted at this stage due to the unavailability of essential records since the passage of considerable time since the final selection.
As an upshot, no grounds to interfere are made out.
Petitions are dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.