- (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.
(3.) Mr. Dinesh Yadav, the learned Additional Advocate General, has raised two preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of these writ petitions. Firstly, that 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, 1957 AIR(SC) 425; Dhananjaya Malik Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2008 4 SCC 171; Madan Lal Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1995 3 SCC 486; Marripati Nagaraja Vs. State of A.P., 2007 11 SCC 522; Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh K. Shukla, 1986 Supp1 SCC 285; Amlan Jyoti Borooah Vs. State of Assam, 2009 3 SCC 227; Union of India Vs. 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 12 SCC 724; Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, 2002 6 SCC 127; Vijay Sagal & Another v. State of Punjab & Others, 2003 9 SCC 401; G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, 1976 3 SCC 585; Smt.Yashbala Rathore & 126 others v. State of Rajasthan & others,2010 1 WLC(Raj) 514.Secondly, the petitioners have not arrayed those persons, who have been selected and appointed to the post of Rural Nursing Grade-II, as party respondent. Therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. After all, this Court cannot pass an order which may adversely affect the interest of those candidates who have been selected and appointed on the posts. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon Ishwar Singh & Others v. Kuldeep Singh & Others, 1995 Supp1 SCC 179; Avtar Singh v. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Managing Committee & Others, 2006 8 SCC 487; Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., 1984 4 SCC 251; Arun Tiwari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, 1998 2 SCC 332; and U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & Others v. Daya Ram Saroj & Others, 2007 2 SCC 138.;