R. S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) HAVING faced the selection process, having been denied the appointment to the post of Rural Nursing Grade II, the petitioners, in all these writ petitions, have approached this Court. Since all these writ petitions challenge the merit list dated 8 -8 -2009, they are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 18 -7 -2008, the Director, Medical & Health Services issued an advertisement for the post of Rural Nursing Grade II. According to the advertisement there were 1757 posts. Moreover, according to the advertisement, the selection was to be made on the basis of merit/ interview. The selections were to be made in accordance with Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Services Rules, 2008 (for short 'Rules, 2008'). Since the petitioners possessed the requisite qualification, they applied for the said post. The petitioners were called for interview, which were conducted from 3 -7 -2009 to 2 -8 -2009. On 8 -8 -2009, the merit list was published. However, the petitioners were shocked to learn that they have not been selected for the said post. Hence, they rushed to this Court. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, the learned Additional Advocate General, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of these writ petitions. Since the petitioners have undergone the selection process, without any protest and without challenging the same, they are now precluded from challenging the selection process. According to Mr. Yadav, in catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that once a candidate undergoes the selection process, he cannot challenge it, as he has acquiesced to the selection process and waived his right. In order to buttress his argument, the learned Counsel has relied upon Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, : AIR 1957 SC 425; Dhananjaya Malik v. State of Uttaranchal : (2008) 4 SCC 171;Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir : (1995) 3 SCC 486; Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P. : (2007) 11 SCC 522; Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh K. Shukla : (1986) Supp. SCC 285; Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam : (2009) 3 SCC 227; Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar : (2007) 8 SCC 100; Sadananda Halo v. Mumtaz Ali Sheikh : (2008) 4 SCC 619; H.K. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Finance Corporation : (2008) 7 SCC 639; Munindra Kumar V. Rajiv Govil : (1991) 3 SCC 368; Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 11 SCC 724; Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla : (2002) 6 SCC 127; Vijay Sagal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. : (2003) 9 SCC 401; G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow : (1976) 3 SCC 585; Smt. Yashbala Rathore & 126 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,, 2010 (1) W.L.C. (Raj.) 514.
(3.) MR . Tanveer Ahmad, Mr. S.S. Hasan and other learned Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the appointment cannot be made solely on the basis of interview. In order to buttress this argument, the learned Counsel have relied upon Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., ( : AIR 1981 SC 487), and St. Stephen's College v. the University of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 1639. According to the petitioners for 1757 vacancies all the applicants were invited for interview. Every day about 700 candidates were interviewed. Thus, the interview could not have lasted for more than a minute or two. Hence, the entire interview process was more illusionary than substantive in nature. The petitioners could challenge the selection only after having undergone the process, and not before hand. Secondly, as there are glaring mistakes made in the merit list, for example, the cut of point is no where indicated in the merit list, marks obtained by each candidate is not indicated in the said list, members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe have not been selected, therefore, the selection process could be challenged only after it has been completed.;