PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs: "a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and the advertisement dated 04.09.2017 (Annex.4) may be quashed and set aside. b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this petition may kindly be allowed with costs and the respondents may be directed to adopt a unreasonable bonus marks for experience. c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs and the respondents may kindly be directed to adopt fair selection process after giving reasonable bonus marks or benefit of experience. d) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs and the respondent authority may kindly be directed to declare the fair/proper criteria of the selection for the post of Junior Technical Assistant. e) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs and the respondent authority may kindly be directed to fill up the post of Junior Technical Assistant without any discrimination between the already in contractual appointed persons in MNREGA and fresher candidate. f) Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted." g) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties are in a position to dispute that the controversy is covered by the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Prem Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 169/2017) and other connected writ petitions decided on 26.10.2017. The order reads as under: "Both these writ petitions involve common set of facts and question of law; for which they are being decided by this common order. The petitioners having participated in the process of selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.09.2016 for the post of Junior Technical Assistant, have approached this Court raising a grievance that the respondents while considering the candidature and preparing final select-list, have awarded bonus marks to the petitioners. It has also been contended that while issuing the notification/advertisement, they had laid down the criteria in accordance with which, the selection would be made. The grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid the petitioners, holding diploma, competed with the candidates possessing engineering degree; however the list of selected candidates revealed that most of the candidates selected were holding degrees. According to the petitioners such fact shows that the candidature of diploma holders have been considered at all. The other argument of the petitioners has been that the reason for their exclusion has been that petitioners were awarded bonus marks for the experience, which they have procured, while working under various scheme of the government. Mr. Manish Patel, learned counsel for the respondents at the outset pointed out that the issue raised by the petitioner in the present case has been set at rest by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 08.05.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 171/2017 (Pradeep Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), wherein it has been held that the petitioner having participated pursuant to an advertisement, cannot challenge the terms of the advertisement, having remained unsuccessful. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "It is well settled proposition of law that when a candidate consciously takes part in selection process, he subsequently cannot turn around and question the very selection process." Mr. Patel submitted that all the recruitments under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 are required to be made by the District Coordinator as provided under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 2005. He submitted that it is within the domain of the District Programme Coordinator to lay down selection criteria and if the concerned Zila Parishad in its wisdom has decided to provide bonus marks to the person working in various scheme floated by the Government, the petitioners cannot challenge the same. He further submitted that the State Government had no direct supervision or control over the appointment to be granted by the respective Zila Parishads and the District Programme Coordinator is competent to prescribe only the qualification but also the selection criteria. In rejoinder, Mr. Kuldeep Mathur pointed out that in various other Zila Parishads such as Jalore, Hanumangarh, Bundi and Nagour etc., the respondents have awarded bonus marks to the candidates having experience, whereas no such bonus marks have been accorded by the respondent - Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer. He submitted that since the requisite fund is provided by the State Government out of the funds made available by the Central Government; it is incumbent upon the State to lay down broad guidelines, which should be made applicable to all the Zila Parishads uniformly. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds no substance and force in the writ petition. The petitioners have willingly vied in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.09.2016, without raising any protest or demur about the terms of the advertisement, which did provide for any bonus marks for the experience. As such they cannot find fault in the terms of the advertisement, which they had accepted while submitting the form and appearing in the process. My aforesaid view is in conformity with the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.171/2017 Pradeep Singh (Supra). Adverting to the argument of Mr. Mathur that the petitioners should also be awarded bonus marks as awarded to the candidates having applied in other Zila Parishads; suffice it to observe that bonus marks cannot be claimed as a matter of right, until and unless there is a stipulation in the terms of advertisement or the District Level Committee, decides to award such bonus marks. While parting with the judgment, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that on account of different yardstick and selection criteria, prescribed by different Zila Parishads, the candidates are left in lurch and uncertainty as to whether they would be awarded bonus marks or not. In absence of uniform criteria, the District Coordinate is left with unguided discretion, which leads to arbitrary exercise of powers; which is turn sows the seeds of hatred, grievance and grudges. In view of the above and as the schemes in questions are funded by the State Government and Central Government, it is imperative that the State should lay down uniform criteria for selection of candidates, at least in relation to qualification, entitlement of bonus marks, reservation, age etc. With these observation, both the writ petitions are dismissed."
(3.) In light of the afore-quoted order, the present writ petition is also dismissed on the same terms.;