High Court of Uttarakhand · 2025

I I . To issue any appr opriat e wr it rule or direct ion in t he nat ure of Mandam us t o t he Respondent t o include t he nam e of t he pet it ioner in t he result by accept ing his 1" applicat ion as t he post of Junior Firem an as his 1™ preference aft er calling t he ent ire records from t he respondent s or t o m ould t he relief appropriat ely keeping in view of t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case highlight ed in t he body of t he pet it ion.”

2. I t is not in disput e t hat pet it ioner had subm it t ed t wo 1 applicat ions pursuant t o t he advert isem ent , one for t he post of Junior Firem an and anot her for t he post of Junior Fire Supervisor. Pet it ioner claim s appoint m ent on t he post of Junior Firem an based on his score of m arks in t he select ion.

3. The first applicat ion was subm it t ed by pet it ioner online on 25.05.2022, in which he had applied for t he post of Junior Firem an and t hereaft er he subm it t ed anot her applicat ion online on 27.05.2022 for t he post of Junior Fire Supervisor. The first applicat ion subm it t ed by pet it ioner was rej ect ed by relying upon Clause L( f) of t he advert isem ent , which reads as under: L( f ) Candidat es are advised t o subm it only one applicat ion. I n case m ult iple applicat ions from a candidat e are found and est ablished t he last one shall be considered as final and t he rest shall be rej ect ed.

4. Pet it ioner relies upon Clause G( i) t he advert isem ent , which perm it s a candidat e t o apply for m axim um t hree post s and subm it s t hat Clause L( f) is cont rary t o t he condit ion given in Clause G( i) . Clause G( i) is reproduced below for ready reference: G( i) A candidat e can apply ( Maxim um Three) for which he/ she is eligible. for MULTI PLE post s

5. I n para 7 of t he writ pet it ion, pet it ioner has st at ed t hat in t he first applicat ion, pet it ioner indicat ed t he post of Junior Firem an as his first preference; since t here was no opt ion in t he web port al for t he post of Junior Fire Supervisor, t herefore he had t o apply second t im e for t he said post .

6. Learned counsel for ONGC subm it s t hat applicat ion was m ade by pet it ioner on 25.05.2022 and t hereaft er subm it t ed second applicat ion 2 27.05.2022. He refers t o para 4 of t he count er affidavit for subm it t ing t hat in t he t wo applicat ions subm it t ed by pet it ioner online, he had given different em ail address and different m obile num bers wit h a view t o conceal his ident it y or else t he web port al would have not accept ed his second applicat ion.

7. Learned counsel for pet it ioner subm it s t hat since in t he web port al, t he aforesaid t wo post s were not sim ult aneously available and pet it ioner was eligible for bot h t he post s, t herefore, he was com pelled t o subm it second applicat ion; ONGC accept ed bot h t he applicat ions issued separat e adm it cards and pet it ioner part icipat ed in t he select ion for bot h t he post s, t herefore ONGC cannot rej ect pet it ioner’s claim for appoint m ent for t he post of Junior Firem an.

8. Learned counsel for ONGC subm it s t hat in t he web port al, different group of post s were displayed and a candidat e was ent it led t o apply for m axim um t hree post s out of a given group of post s; t he post of Junior Firem an and Junior Fire Supervisor were included in different groups, t herefore a candidat e had t o choose anyone of t he t wo post s, while subm it t ing online applicat ion.

9. He furt her subm it s t hat pet it ioner earlier applied for t he post of Junior Firem an and he t hereaft er subm it t ed anot her applicat ion in which he applied for t he post of Junior Fire Supervisor, which was not perm issible and t he first applicat ion got cancelled in view of t he condit ion m ent ioned in Clause L( f) of t he advert isem ent .

10. He furt her subm it s t hat pet it ioner was successful in subm it t ing second online applicat ion by concealing his ident it y which result ed in issuance of t wo adm it cards t o 3 t he pet it ioner and pet it ioner cannot t ake benefit of a wrong com m it t ed by him and his candidat ure cannot be considered for bot h t he post s and his applicat ion has t o be considered only for t he post indicat ed by him in his second applicat ion.

11. Learned counsel appearing for ONGC has drawn at t ent ion of t his Court t o t he following averm ent m ade in para 7 of t he count er affidavit : “ 7…………………As a m at t er of fact , t he candidat es were given opt ion of m ult iple post s in a single applicat ion based on eligibilit y. I t also m ent ions t hat m ore t han 38,000 candidat es have subm it t ed m ore t han one preference as per t heir eligibilit y t hrough t heir single applicat ion. An inbuilt check in t he online applicat ion syst em was kept t o prohibit m ult iple applicat ions from sam e candidat es by prohibit ing second applicat ion t hrough com binat ion of m obile num ber and e- m ail address. The pet it ioner m ischievously subm it t ed m ult iple applicat ions by changing his m obile num ber and em ail address t o bypass in online applicat ion syst em . Therefore t he adm it card was issued for m ult iple applicat ions by t he sam e candidat e. I t is however subm it t ed t hat t he recruit m ent not ificat ion clearly not ified t hat m ere issue of adm it card will not im ply t hat t he candidat ure finally cleared by ONGC as per Clause Q( 1) of recruit m ent not ificat ion.” inbuilt check t he

12. This Court finds subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned counsel for t he ONGC.

13. Clause L( f) of t he advert isem ent forewarned every candidat e t o subm it only one applicat ion and t he consequence of subm it t ing m ult iple applicat ions was also indicat ed t hat only t he last one shall be considered and t he earlier applicat ion shall be rej ect ed.

14. Pet it ioner t ook a chance by subm it t ing t wo applicat ions for different group of post s and ONGC was j ust ified in rej ect ing his earlier applicat ion in view of t he 4 condit ion set out in t he advert isem ent .

15. Pet it ioner has st aked claim for appoint m ent t o t he post of Junior Firem an for which he had applied earlier. Due t o rej ect ion of his first applicat ion in t erm s of Clause L( f) of t he advert isem ent , t he relief as claim ed in t his writ pet it ion cannot be grant ed.

16. Pet it ioner has raised t he issue of conflict bet ween Clause G( i) and Clause L( f) of t he advert isem ent . ONGC, in it s count er affidavit has st at ed t hat m ore t han 38,000 candidat es applied for m ult iple post s by subm it t ing one applicat ion. The averm ent m ade in para 7 of t he count er affidavit is not rebut t ed by pet it ioner, t hus t his Court has no reason t o disbelieve t he st and t aken by ONGC t hat every candidat e had t he opport unit y t o apply for m ult iple post s subj ect t o m axim um of t hree, from a group of post s. Two post s for which pet it ioner applied were included in separat e group of post s which appears t o be t he reason for pet it ioner t o apply second t im e, which however, was prohibit ed by t he advert isem ent .

17. Seen t hat background, cont ent ion raised by learned counsel for t he pet it ioner t hat t wo condit ions, m ent ioned above, are cont rary t o each ot her cannot be accept ed. The opport unit y t o apply for m ult iple post s was lim it ed t o a part icular group of post s as t he web port al did not perm it a candidat e t o apply for t wo post s t aken from different group of post s. The advert isem ent clearly indicat ed t hat in case of m ult iple applicat ions, t he last one shall be t reat ed as final and t he rem aining will be rej ect ed. I f pet it ioner applied second t im e by ignoring warning cont ained in t he advert isem ent , t hen he him self is t o be blam ed and t he act ion of ONGC cannot be 5 fault ed.

18. Learned counsel for pet it ioner t hen subm it t ed t hat condit ion L( f) of t he advert isem ent is cont rary t o regulat ions; however, no subm ission was advanced in support of said cont ent ion; which provision of regulat ion was violat ed was also not indicat ed. Even ot herwise also, law is well set t led t hat aft er part icipat ing in a select ion, an unsuccessful candidat e cannot quest ion t he condit ions set out in t he advert isem ent and rules of t he gam e could have been challenged only before part icipat ing in t he select ion.

19. Learned counsel for ONGC is right in subm it t ing t hat pet it ioner is est opped from challenging condit ion L( f) of t he advert isem ent aft er being declared unsuccessful in t he select ion.

20. This Court do not find any arbit rariness in t he decision t aken by ONGC. Rej ect ion of pet it ioner’s first applicat ion for t he post of Junior Firem an is st rict ly as per t he t erm s and condit ions of t he advert isem ent .

21. Thus, t here is no scope for int erference in t he m at t er. The writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. _______________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. Dt : 02.09.2025 Mahinder MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92 d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305 B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH 6