(1.) The only ground of challenge in the matter is that pursuant to the order passed on 30.04.2007 by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 19688-92/2004 and other connected matters, the petitioners were invited to participate in a typing test which was held on manual typewriters, whereas, according to the petitioners, some individuals were given the facility of giving their test on computer. The petitioners contend that, under the circumstances, the same opportunity should have been made available to them also. Admittedly, one of the terms of the aforesaid order of 30.04.2007 passed by the Division Bench, which was a consent order, was that the petitioners would be obliged to undertake a typing test. Pursuant to that, it is also admitted that along with other candidates, the petitioners were also called for a typing test and they were asked to bring their own typewriters. Obviously, therefore, the petitioners were well aware that they would be required to use a typewriter for the test. Having known that, the petitioners brought their own typewriters and sat for the test. In other words, they approbated the structure and system adopted by the respondents for conducting the test. It is only when they found themselves unsuccessful, they seek to challenge the decision to conduct the test by way of a manual typewriter.
(2.) Having already taken a chance and failed, it is not open to the petitioners to now seek to impugn this aspect of the test and ask for a fresh test to be conducted on a computer. Having participated with their eyes open in the test, it is now not open to them to disavow the same merely because they have not been successful.
(3.) The petitioners contentions that some individuals were permitted to take the test in question on a computer is denied by counsel for the respondent who clarifies that when the test in question was held, after due notice, all the candidates who took that test used a manual typewriter only.