- (1.) NONE appears on behalf of petitioner, though name of Mr. S.P. Sharma, is shown in the cause list.
(2.) MR . Rajeev Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submitted that the controversy in hand about the challenge laid to the examination pattern for promotion adopted by the respondent - Bank, is covered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank Vs. Megha Raj Soni & Ors. (DBSAW No.180/2009, decided on 26.05.2009), in which Division Bench of this Court while allowing the Bank's appeal, had dismissed the writ petition of the writ -petitioners about such objections to the examination process adopted by the respondent - Bank. The relevant portion of the Division Bench judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference: - "Before examining this legal objection, we may look into the facts. As per note appended to the said circular dated 8.8.2002, the circular was brought to knowledge of all the employees of the bank. Process of promotion was started in the year 2003. As per the respondents, they, without challenging the condition of circular, appeared in written test on 20.4.2003 that is about 8 months after the circular was issued and then faced the interview on 10.7.2003 and till then, the respondents had no grievance against the condition in question. The respondents definitely faced the interview knowing it well that whoever will fail in securing the minimum marks in the interview will not get the promotion and that situation may be beneficial to the respondents if their seniors would have been excluded in this process of promotion because of their getting less marks in interview than prescribed minimum marks. In that situation, the respondents would not have challenged the condition in question, rather they would have supported the condition of prescribing minimum marks in the interview to protect their promotions. Furthermore, the respondents had ample time to challenge the criteria laid down for promotion but they did not challenge it in time and when they failed in getting the benefit of the same condition, have challenged the said condition. In the backdrop of these facts, we may consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to govern this situation. In the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooah (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the candidates who had subjected himself to a faulty selection process could not question it later on. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the appointments made in excess of advertised vacancies not challenged expeditiously than delay can be a ground for rejecting the challenge. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that after participation in the selection process, the unsuccessful candidates posing challenge that the recruitment was not according to the statutory Rules and prescribed education qualifications were not adhered to, then those candidates who unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection, they are estopped from challenging selection criteria, even if they had any valid objection. The Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that if they had any valid objection, they should have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection. In the case of Dr.M.C. Mehta (supra), this Court held that even if it is assumed that the direction given in the decision in regard to reconvening of the Board and drawing up of a fresh list of Readers in the light of criteria laid down in those Rules was void or in principle nullity, even then the candidate has took chance of taking benefit of that direction, then after failing, he cannot challenge the valid constitution of the Board who selected the candidates. In the case of Union of India and another vs. N. Chandrasekharan and others reported in AIR 1998 SC 795, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the candidates were aware of the procedure for promotion before they appeared for written test and before departmental promotion proceeded, then subsequently their plea that the marks allotted to interview and ACR was unduly disproportionate or that authorities cannot fix minimum marks to be secured at interview or in ACR, cannot be entertained. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik (supra)makes it clear that even if the recruitment was not made according to the statutory Rules and prescribed education qualifications were not adhered to and by this Court in the case of Dr.M.C. Mehta (supra) that even where the criteria laid down in the Rules was void or in principle nullity and in the case of N.Chandrasekharan (supra), when the plea was taken that the marks allotted to interview and ACR were unduly disproportionate or that authorities cannot fix minimum marks to be secured at interview or in ACR, then also the candidates who unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection are estopped from challenging the selection criteria even if they had any valid objection. In view of the above reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the objections of the appellant about maintainability of the writ petition is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court and the respondents' writ petitions could not have been entertained to examine the merits in their submission. In view of the above reasons, both these appeals are allowed, the judgments of the learned Single Judge dated 3.11.2008 are set aside and the writ petitions of the petitioners are dismissed. Sd/ - Sd/ - (VINEET KOTHARI), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J." In view of above, the present writ petition also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.;