1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1511/1996 Subhash Chand vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 6/4/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Yogesh Gupta for the petitioner. Shri B.S. Rajawat, Deputy Government Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by his non selection on the post of Constable. Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner initially argued that the petitioner was selected and was placed in the merit list, which information was given to him by letter dated 19.1.1995. The merit list was prepared for XIth Batallion of RAC for Ajmer, Bharatpur, Jaipur and Bikaner centres. However, subsequently, the respondents have bifurcated the selection at the different centres and prepared the merit centrewise, as a result of which the name of petitioner was pushed from the reserved list. Learned counsel cited the division bench judgement of this Court in Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Om 2 Dutt Sharma & Anr.-RLR 1990 (1) page 182 and argued that when recruitment was to be made in the same battalion, there should have been common merit and common selection. The action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner was wholly illegal. Shri B.S. Rajawat, learned Deputy Government Counsel for respondents argued that petitioner has not set up a case that a common select list was prepared for all the four centres. In fact, the respondents have held the selection and prepared the selected list on the basis of every centre separately and petitioner in para 5 has clearly admitted that his name finds place at S.No.3 in the reserve list of Ajmer Centre. No candidate lower than him in merit was given appointment in the OBC category. The writ petition was filed after delay of one and half years. Having participated in the selection which took place in 1994, petitioner could not be subsequently allowed to contend that the selection should have been held for all four centres together and not centrewise. The petitioner would be 3 estopped from questioning the correctness of the selection process, especially when he has applied for appointment in Ajmer Centre only. Learned counsel in support of his arguments sought to cite the original application form of the petitioner to show that he applied for Ajmer Centre only. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that petitioner has indeed not set up a case that his name was placed in the select list on the basis of common selection process. On the contrary what appears from his pleadings is that the petitioner throughout knew that selections were being held separately for every centre and with that understanding he applied for Ajmer centre. Having participated in the selection and then failed to secure a place in the merit, petitioner, who otherwise appeared in the reserved list, could not be subsequently allowed to question the correctness of the procedure adopted by the respondents because he by his own conduct would be estopped from doing so. It may be a fact that recruitment should have been held simultaneously for all 4 four centres on the basis of common merit particularly when such recruitment was having made for common battalion of the RAC namely XIth battalion, but then the petitioner allowed the things to become final by participating in the selection for one centre and did not challenge the action of the respondents at that stage and choose to file the writ petition one and half years after the selection. At this belated stage, especially when the petitioner has not been able to show that any candidate lower than him in merit has been selected, no interference can be made. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/