1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 803 of 1994 DR.DINESH KOTHARI V/S STATE & ORS Mr. M.S. Panwar for Mr. Sajjan Singh for the appellant. Mr. Tarun Joshi for Mr. J.P. Joshi for the R.P.S.C. Mr. B.L. Bhati, Addl. G.A. for the respondents. Date of Judgment : 23.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. JUDGMENT -------- Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of filing this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2.11.93, whereby, the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. The appellant by way of writ petition sought to challenge the constitution of the selection board, consisting of respondents No.3 to 5, for selection for the purpose of Assistant Professors in T.B. and Chest diseases, and other directions prayed were, that the recommendations made by the RPSC for appointment of respondents No. 6 to 11, and keeping the respondents No.12 and 13 in reserve 2. list, be declared illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional, and be struck down. The next prayer made is, that if appointments are made, pursuant to the recommendations, the same be also declared illegal and un- authorized and be quashed and struck down. The factual averments, necessary for the present purpose are, that according to the petitioner, for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors, in the above subject, advertisement was issued on 6.5.93, in response whereto, the petitioner has also applied, who received interview call letter dated 18.8.93, and was called to appear before the Commission on 22.9.93. Then, in para-6, it is alleged, that in pursuance to the interview call letter, the petitioner appeared before the interview board, and at that time learnt, that nearly 40-45 candidates were appearing for the interviews, and also learnt facts, which in view of the petitioner, made it clear to him, that selection would neither be fair, nor un- biased. It is alleged that respondents No.3 and 4 Dr. T.N. Sharma and Dr. S.D. Purohit, were sitting as the experts in the interview, even though these persons had been the guides for various candidates, the post-graduation course, and such, other facts have been alleged. Some details of the facts have been given, to show, that they had worked under these experts. 3. The learned Single Judge found, that in the ordinary course of their service, these persons, being Professors, were posted at Medical Colleges at Udaipur and Ajmer, and in the ordinary course, number of students must have been taught by them, and thereby, it cannot be said, that they were rendered disqualified from becoming members of the Selection Board. Then, the contention regarding personal bias, as was alleged, was also negatived, on the ground, that no case for bias, or malafide, against the respondent No.3, has been made out. Likewise, other contentions were also negatived. Learned counsel for the appellant, arguing the appeal reiterated the same contentions, as were advanced before the learned Single Judge. In our view, in addition to the grounds given by the learned Single Judge, the very fact, that the appellant had himself appeared before the Selection Board, and admittedly was not selected, thus, he very much took a chance of getting selected before the Board, and being unsuccessful, has filed the writ petition, challenging the constitution of the Selection Board, which in our view, on the established legal position, as laid down in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be permitted. 4. We also make it clear, that we are at one with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as well. Thus we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal, having no force, is dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. ms rathore