CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to respondents to fill up the vacancies of Engineers as per the eligibility on the date of initial advertisement dated 18.1.1997.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission") advertised 444 posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Public Works Department (B & R), Irrigation and Public Health & Engineering Department under the provisions of the Rajasthan State Engineering Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1954. THE last date for submitting the application, as per the said advertisement, had been 15.3.97. THE said Rules stood amended vide order dated 22.1.97 providing for horizental reservation in favour of woman candidates. A corrigendum was issued by the Commission on 10.2.97 to give effect to the said amendment dated 22.1.97. THE result of the examination was declared on 2.12.97 and petitioner's name appeared in the select list. However, as the Commission realised that the orders dated 22.1.97 and 10.2.97 could not be implemented properly, it re-arranged the select list and a fresh select list was prepared on 5.1.97 and vide letter dated 17.12.97, petitioner was informed that he was lowered down in the merit list and his name did not appear in the select list. Hence this petition. Petitioner filed this writ petition on 5.1.98 and an interim order was passed by this Court on 7.1.98 staying the operation of the order dated 17.12.97. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents that all appointments have been made and none of the successful candidates has been impleaded as a party in the petition and the petition is not maintainable. The only question for consideration in the instant case is: whether the criteria of eligibility existing on the date of advertising the vacancies or on the last date of submission of applications would apply, for the reason that in the instant case though the vacancies were advertised on 18.1.97 but the eligibility stood amended on 22.1.97 and for the same, the corrigendum had been issued on 10.2.97 though the last date for submission of applications was 15.3.97. Be that as it may, as the advertisement dated 18.1.97 stood amended vide corrigendum dated 10.2.97, issued much prior to the last date of submission of applications i.e. 15.3.97, petitioner cannot have any grievance whatsoever and even if he was aggrieved, he ought to have challenged the corrigendum prior to the last date of submission of applications or at the most, before holding the test. I am of the considered opinion that once petitioner has submitted to the corrigendum, he is not entitled to raise the issue at such a belated stage. It is settled proposition of law that delay, even of one day, in a particular case may be fatal for the petitioner and may unable the Court to grant any relief even if he has good case on merit. (Vide Smt. Sudama Devi vs. Commissioner & Ors. (1).
(3.) PETITIONER faced the selection process with his eyes open, knowing well the criteria laid down in the corrigendum and amended advertisement without raising any protest and merely because at this state he stood unsuccessful, he cannot be heard. (Vide M/s. Pannalal Binjraj & Ors. vs. Union of India (2); Manak Lal vs. Prem Chand (3); Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J & K and Ors. (4); Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow (5); Maj. Chander Bhan Singh vs. Latafat Ullah Khan & Ors. (6); Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors. (7); M/s. Power Control Appliances & Ors. vs. Sumeet Machineries Pvt. Ltd. (8); State of Punjab vs. Krishan Niwas (9); State of Orissa vs. Narain Prasad (10); U.D. Lama vs. State of Sikkim (11); Union of India & Ors. vs. N. Chandrasekharan (12); Suneeta Agrawal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (13) and State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anilkumar Sunilkumar & party (14). In Y.V Rangaiah & Ors. vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. (15); A.A. Calton vs. Director of Education & Anr. (16); P. Gyaneshwar Rao & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors (17); and P. Mahendran & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (18) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that candidates have to be assessed for selection as per the eligibility criteria existing on the date of advertisement of vacancies for the reason that selection process starts with advertisement and all those persons who apply in response to the same, would be eligible to be considered. All the judgments, referred to above, have been given by the two Hon'ble Judges' Bench except P. Mahendran (supra), which was given by the Bench of three Hon'ble Judges. ;