Summary
The Supreme Court upheld rejection of an additional computer-efficiency test used to remove candidates from Gram Rojgar Sahayak select lists in Rewa district. Statewide guidelines prescribed the qualifications and marking method; the Collector could not introduce an unauthorised additional selection criterion through a timetable. Participation did not estop the affected candidates because the timetable described testing already-selected or top-merit candidates rather than clearly announcing a further eliminatory criterion.
Issues
- Whether a district Collector could add a computer-efficiency selection test to the statewide guidelines.
- Whether participation in the test barred candidates from challenging subsequent removal from the select list.
Held
- The common guidelines prescribed recognised computer qualifications and allocation of marks. Without authority, one district could not alter the statewide requirements by adding an assessment criterion; its introduction through the later timetable changed the existing process impermissibly. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Ordinarily a candidate who knowingly accepts a notified procedure and takes a chance cannot challenge it after failure. Here the timetable was not a recruitment notification setting out a new selection criterion: it referred to testing selected candidates and those at the top of the merit list. Attendance did not establish informed acceptance of an additional eliminatory assessment. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- The High Court had considered the participation argument in its factual context and was not acting contrary to the cited precedent. The Court declined further comment on the separate review-order observations protecting certain meritorious candidates. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeals dismissed without costs; impugned High Court orders left undisturbed. Pending applications disposed of.