The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench held that it is not open for the applicants to question the result after participating in the selection process.

The Court was deciding a petition preferred by the applicants praying for a direction to conduct online common recruitment test in Hindi language for selection in pursuance of an advertisement and declare the final result of the selection only after conducting Common Recruitment Test in Hindi properly with all consequential benefits.

A Single Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar asserted, “The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar and others Vs. Bihar and others (supra), as held that it was not open to the appellants after participating in the selection process to question the result on being declared unsuccessful. … this Court is of the view that the writ petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless ground, which is liable to be dismissed.”

The Bench said that once the Rules/Regulations have been framed by the SGPGI with the approval of the State Government, the selection is to be made on the basis of the same and that the Government Order is not applicable.

Advocate Avinash Tiwari appeared for the petitioners while Senior Advocate Sanjay Bhasin and Advocate Shubham Tripathi appeared for the respondents.

Brief Facts

The petitioners sought for quashing the procedure of the online Common Recruitment Test or in an alternative issue a suitable direction to the respondents not to make any selection or appointment only in pursuance of the said test. The petitioners also prayed for a direction not to give effect to the marks obtained in the said test.

An advertisement was issued by the medical institute for several posts and the petitioners applied for the same. The petitioners, being found eligible, were called for the online Common Recruitment Test containing multiple choice questions of 100 marks. Thereafter, the list of marks obtained by the candidates was declared and after being unsuccessful in the test, the petitioners approached the High Court mainly with the prayer that the test may be conducted in Hindi language and to declare the result on the basis of the same.

The High Court in the above regard noted, “The advertisement does not provide any medium of questions paper. However, there are 10 marks on General English, therefore, a person appearing in the CRT is required to know the General English. The question paper was a multiple choice questions paper. Since the advertisement does not provide for any language for CRT, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is violation of terms and conditions of the advertisement is misconceived and not tenable. Any condition, which is not provided under the advertisement cannot be said to have been violated.”

The Court further noted that the syllabus of the selection in question was in English and no objection was raised by the petitioners and nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioners have ever made any request for providing the syllabus in Hindi, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners do not know the English language, which may have been required for multiple choice questions, particularly when there are 10 marks for General English.

“If the syllabus was in English language then it can safely be inferred that the question papers would be in English and if the petitioners have not raised any objection at that stage, they cannot say now that the question paper should have been in Hindi also. A thing which is not provided under the advertisement cannot be said to have been violated in such a situation. When the language of paper was not provided in the advertisement, it cannot be said that CRT has been held in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement”, observed the Court.

The Court also observed that it cannot be accepted that a candidate who has applied for the post knowing it well does not know the English required for multiple choice questions paper.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title- Uday Singh and 6 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education Lko. and 4 Others

Click here to read/download the Judgment