1 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2288/1996 Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Solanki & Ors. vs JNV Univesity & Anr. AND 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2289/1996 Dr. Praveen Kumar Singh & Ors. vs JNV Univesity & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 9.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA. Mr. RN Upadhayay, for the petitioners <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the selection process for which advertisement no.7/95 dated 24.4.1995 was published and by which applications were invited by the respondent – University for the various posts mentioned in Annex.4 – the notification dated 24.4.1995. Admittedly, the petitioners were aspirants for the posts for which they were claiming themselves to be eligible and submitted their applications in response to the advertisement dated 24.4.1995. Then in pursuance of the selection, they were called for interview also and admittedly they appeared for the interview. The selection committee made its recommendations and sent it for consideration to the Syndicate for giving appointment to the selected 2 candidates. The petitioners contended that they had no knowledge about the several irregularities in the process of selection and they came to know about those irregularities subsequent to their interviews and, therefore, they have preferred these writ petitions to challenge the selection process initiated by the advertisement dated 24.4.1995. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petitions and objected to maintainability of the writ petition of the petitioners to challenge the advertisement dated 24.4.1995 stating that after taking chance for selection in the process of selection under the advertisement dated 24.4.1995, the petitioner cannot challenge the said process. The facts are not in dispute that advertisement was issued on 24.4.1995 and the petitioners took part in the selection process and they also appeared in the interviews so as to get the selection under the same advertisement dated 24.4.1995, therefore, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank Vs. Megh Raj Soni & Ors. (DBSAW No.180/2009) and other connected two matters decided on 26th May, 2009 considering the judgments delivered in the case of (i) Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 227, (ii) Dhananjay Malik & Ors Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in (2008) 4 3 SCC 171; and (iii) Dr. M.C. Mehta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in 22 ILR Raj. 711 of this Court, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction after submitting their application for getting appointment on the post concerned and after appearing in the interview. Further more, the contention of the petitioners in the writ petition that subsequently, they came to know about certain irregularities is concerned, that appears to be quite vague assertion because of the reason that the petitioners have not disclosed the source of their knowledge from which they got any relevant information so as to create any doubt in their mind to challenge the selection process and from the facts stated in the writ petition it is difficult to believe that petitioners had no knowledge at the time of submitting their application for selection to the post. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that even if there is irregularity and even illegality in the process of selection even then if the petitioner has appeared in the selection process then he is not entitled to challenge the selection process. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. cpgoyal/-