1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 7768/2009 In D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 1447/2008 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2114/2007 Guman Singh Meena Versus State of Rajasthan & Others. 17.08.2009 Hon'ble Mr.R.C.Gandhi,J. Hon'ble Mr. K.S. Chaudhari,J. Mr. Shashi Bushan Gupta, for the appellant. Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG, for the respondents. Mr. K.K. Sahu, for the Respondent No. 4. (Oral) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30.06.2008 whereby the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner for quashing Notification dated 2nd February, 2007 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The appellant-petitioner was having fair price shop for half of the population of the village. A notification was issued for bifurcating the population into 2 two zones for which the appellant was having the licence for fair price shop. A meeting of the Advisory Committee was held on 16.11.2006 as per the procedure. The appellant got four votes whereas the other contender namely Ramesh got two votes. 3. Since, there was no unanimity, as per the instructions of the Government, the matter was referred to the Collector and the Collector in turn referred the same to the State Government. The State Government on consideration of the claims of the parties directed the District Supply Officer, Karauli vide letter dated 18.12.2006 to re-advertise the fair price shops. 4. A notification to that effect was issued on 02.02.2007. The appellant-petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 participated in the process. Out of total six advisory committee members, each three members cast their votes in favour of the appellant and the Respondent No. 4. Since, there was no unanimity, the matter was again referred to the Collector who in turn referred the same to the State Government. The State Government allotted half of the portion to both of them. Pursuant to the order of the Government, the District Supply Officer, Karauli issued order dated 07.05.2007 to that effect. 3 5. Thereafter, the petitioner-appellant moved the Court in the month of July, 2007 by means of Writ Petition No. 2114/2007 as pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant. We have seen the record and heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is in possession of the shop and is doing business for half of the population of the village as per order dated 07.05.2007. The appellant has participated in the selection process and is not entitled to challenge the same as settled by the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered in case title Union of India & Another Vs. N. Chandrasekharan & Others, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 694, holding as under: “.......It is not in dispute that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and condifential reports are disproportionately high and the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report.......” 6. The appellant has appeared in the process for allotment of fair price shop without any protest and is also enjoying the fruit of the order of the District Supply Officer of allotment of fair price shop for 1/4th population of the 4 village. His case is well within the parameters of the aforesaid judgment. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. The record is returned to the District Supply Officer, Karauli who is present in the Court. The appeal is dismissed alongwith connected application. (K.S. Chaudhari),J. (R.C.Gandhi),J. Manoj. Item No.8.