Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas Mahajan vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 October, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
CWP No.7262 of 2009 and another 1
2014.10.09 15:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.7262 of 2009
Date of decision:07.10.2014
Vikas Mahajan
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CWP No.6597 of 2009
Shabeer Sehgal and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Piyush Bansal, DAG, Punjab.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)
These two identical writ petitions are proposed to be decided together, as the same are arising out of the similar set of facts. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CWP No. 7262 of 2009.
Petitioner impugns the selection of private respondents No. 3 to 18 for the posts of Clerks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P-1) and public notice (Annexure P-2), petitioner- claiming himself to be competent and eligible candidate, applied for the MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.7262 of 2009 and another 2 2014.10.09 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document post of Clerk. He participated in the selection process. He further submits that the impugned selection list (Annexure P-3) is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the marks secured by competing candidates in computer proficiency test were not to be counted to arrive at the grand total of maximum marks secured by each candidate. He further submits that computer proficiency test was only a qualifying test and no marks secured therein were to be counted for the purpose of inter-se merit of the candidates. He also challenged the selection criteria adopted by the selection making authority, whereby the criteria of 40% marks in aggregate in the written test, was not adopted as such in the computer proficiency test. He also submits that if the marks secured in computer proficiency test were to be counted for the purpose of preparing final merit, then the criteria of 40% marks in aggregate ought to have been applied qua computer proficiency test as well. Since it has not been so done by the respondent authorities, the impugned selection was patently illegal. He prays for setting aside the impugned selection list (Annexure P-3), by allowing both these writ petitions.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that passing of proficiency test in operation of computers was one of the essential tests, which was uniformally applied qua all the competing candidates. He further submits that since the petitioners even failed to qualify proficiency test in operation of computers, as it is clear from the impugned selection list (Annexure P-3), they were rightly not put in the select list. He further submits that so far as the counting of marks secured in computer proficiency test was concerned, it was integral part of the joint examination and was bound to be taken into consideration. He submits that MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.7262 of 2009 and another 3 2014.10.09 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document once the petitioners have participated in the selection process, knowing fully well about the criteria thereof, they are estopped to challenge the same criteria after having failed to make the bench mark. He prays for dismissal of both these writ petitions.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the cases in hand, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is a matter of record and not in dispute that petitioners could not qualify the computer proficiency test. After carrying out the amendment vide communication dated 6.2.2008 issued by the Registrar General of this Court, the candidates appearing for computer proficiency test, were required to pass the proficiency test in operation of computers, which includes different heads besides the minimum speed of 30 w.p.m. A bare perusal of impugned selection list (Annexure P-3) would show that the petitioners have failed to qualify the computer proficiency test and particularly in the typing of 30 w.p.m. It is pertinent to note here that during the pendency of these writ petitions, petitioner No.1 in CWP No.6597 of 2009 withdrew his writ petition, having been appointed pursuant to a different advertisement and selection. Since the petitioners have failed to qualify computer proficiency test, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the selection making authority, while preparing the selection list (Annexure P-3). Having MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.7262 of 2009 and another 4 2014.10.09 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent authorities have not acted either in arbitrary or in discriminatory manner and both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
It is equally pertinent to note that once the petitioners have participated in the selection process, knowing fully well about the criteria for selection, they cannot be allowed to turn around and say that the same very selection criteria was illegal. In such a situation, rule of estoppel would operate against the petitioners. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that let the official respondents be directed to declare the result of the petitioners in the computer proficiency test. This argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners has been duly considered but found fallacious and the same cannot be accepted. The reason is that the impugned selection list (Annexure P-3) makes it clear that petitioners have failed in the computer proficiency test. Once it is a matter of record, the prayer made by the petitioners in this regard has become redundant.
The abovesaid view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1995(2) SCT 880. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 of the judgment in Madan Lal's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:-
"Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of (-sic-) marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this state there is no dispute between the MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.7262 of 2009 and another 5 2014.10.09 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected a the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed that petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, AIR 1986 SC 1043, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that both these writ petitions are misconceived, bereft of merit and without any merit. Thus, these must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed, however with no order as to costs.
07.10.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE