Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10691 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Varun Dev Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The present petition is directed against the select list dated 21.12.2016 of the post of Computer Operator Grade A Direct Recruitment (General Selection), 2016 finalized pursuant to advertisement dated 23.2.2016. The petitioners have participated in the selection process and seek to challenge the final select list on the ground that certain candidates have wrongly been selected and they were issued appointment letters, in violation of the selection procedure laid down in U.P. Police Computer (Non-gazetted) Staff Service Rules, 2011 as amended by first amendment Rules 2015.
It is further contended that the select list was prepared with ineligible candidates and without adjustment of reserved category candidates (Horizontal) in their respective social category and further that the vacancies remain unfilled due to non-joining of the selected candidates. It is thus sought to be submitted that the selection finalized on 21.12.2016 was marred by various irregularities committed by the respondent no.3, which is the body for recruitment to the said post.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has provided the copies of the order dated 31.1.2017 and 26.4.2017 passed in two writ petitions filed by various other candidates challenging the same select list by means of the supplementary affidavit filed today. The petitioner seeks to explain the laches in filing the writ petition with the assertion that as soon as the petitioner came to know about the fact that the other writ petitions were entertained by this Court, he has approached by filing the present petition. The legal right of the petitioner cannot be curtailed on the ground of laches in approaching the Court.
To deal with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noteworthy that the petitioners, two in number, had participated in the selection process and had failed. The fact of denial of claim of the petitioner i.e. non selection was well within their knowledge. For a period of one and a half year, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act from respondent no.2 raising several questions with regard to the selection process.
It is settled principle of law that a candidate who has participated in the selection process and took chance and failed, cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.
In so far as the challenge to final select list is concerned, the allegations levelled in the writ petition are vague. The grounds of challenge noted above are not substantiated from the record.
Even otherwise, the mere fact that some other writ petitions were entertained in the month of January 2017 and April 2017 challenging to the final select list, cannot be a ground to entertain the writ petition after a period of more than one and a half years as the Court is of the view that there should be an end to the proceedings of challenge to the final select list.
Moreover, the petitioners did not give any plausible explanation for not approaching this Court for such a long time. The petitioners were not vigilant about their rights but were fence sitters watching the proceedings from the outside. They are not entitled for the same relief which has been granted to other persons who were vigilant and approached this Court on time.
Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (2014) 11 SCC 351.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 AK Pandey