SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this court with the following prayer:- " (i) the order dated September 2, 1998 (Ann. 1) and Award dated October 29, 1997 (Ann. 3) passed by Arbitrator may kindly be set aside and quashed. (ii) THE respondent Corporation may be directed to treat petitioner as senior in comparison to respondent No. 3 Abdul Wahid on the post of Stenographer Grade-II and on the post of Personal Assistant. "
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the petitioner and the respondent Abdul Wahid both were initially appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade II. A provisional seniority list was prepared on the basis of total marks obtained by a candidate in the entire process of examination. In that list name of petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 1 whereas name of Abdul Wahid was at No. 7. Petitioner had secured 85 marks in the Stenography Written Examination whereas Abdul Wahid obtained only 37. 5 marks. In interview however Abdul Wahid secured 41 marks while petitioner was awarded only 37 marks. Abdul Wahid submitted representation against placement of his seniority. The representation was rejected on May 1, 1992 by the Rajasthan Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Finance and Development Corporation (for short `corporation') by making provisional seniority list as final. Representation was again submitted on June 24, 1992 by Abdul Wahid claiming the seniority above the petitioner, which was rejected on July 25, 1992. Thereafter Abdul Wahid submitted application before the Registrar under section 75 of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short `1965 Act' ). The petitioner filed reply with the averments that since the appointment was made in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1957 (for short `1957 Rules'), therefore merely on the basis of marks obtained in interview, seniority could not be assigned. However, the application of Abdul Wahid was allowed vide award dated October 29, 1997 and it was ordered that Abdul Wahid was entitled to be placed above the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The appeal preferred against the award was also rejected vide order dated September 2, 1998. Hence this writ petition. Respondent Abdul Wahid in the written statement averred that marks obtained in the interview were the sole criteria for the selection and a decision was taken by the Selection Committee not to add the marks secured by the candidates in Stenography test. The petitioner having taken part in the selection process is estopped from challenging the procedure. I have heard the submissions and scanned the material on record. Rule 24 of 1957 Rules relates to selection. Sub rule (2) of Rule 24 provides that the names of the candidates shall be arranged in the respective tests in the order of aggregate marks obtained by them in the examination. It appears from the record that the marks allotted to the Stenography were 65 and marks for typing speed and efficiency were 20 and 15 respectively. Thereafter 50 marks were allotted for interview. In all the three subjects, the petitioner secured 47. 5 more marks in comparison to Abdul Wahid. In interview however Abdul Wahid obtained 41 marks whereas the petitioner secured 37 marks. It was provided by the Selection Committee that final result shall be drawn from marks secured by the candidates in Interview alone. In my considered opinion the procedure of preparing the final merit list only on the basis of marks obtained in Interview and ignoring the marks secured in Stenography, typing speed and efficiency was unjust, arbitrary and violative of sub rule (2) of rule 24 of 1957 Rules. The principle of estoppal does not operate against the statute therefore the petitioner has every right to assail the illegal procedure adopted by the Selection Committee. In the impugned orders, the provisions contained in sub rule (2) of rule 24 of 1957 Rules were not properly considered and they deserve to be set aside. For these reasons, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated September 2, 1998 (Ann. 1) and October 29, 1997 (Ann. 3 ). The respondent Corporation is directed to treat the petitioner as senior to respondent Abdul Wahid. No costs. . ;