Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Man Prakash Sharma vs State (Health Sciences ... on 20 November, 2013
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19222/2013 Man Prakash Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : 20th November, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Ankit Sethi, for the petitioner/s. BY THE COURT:
The respondents issued an advertisement on 10.12.2011 to engage Class IV employees. The selection was to be made through interview as well as screening test. The petitioner already working with the respondents also applied for the post. The respondent/s made selection solely based on interview eliminating the screening test despite being mentioned in the advertisement itself. The respondent/s, thus selected their favorites based on interview leaving the petitioner. A direction is thus sought for appointment of petitioner as he is serving with the respondent/s for last many years.
I have considered the submissions made and perused the record.
The perusal of advertisement, no doubt, reveals for holding of screening test and interview for selection of the candidates. The respondents did not conduct screening test and selection was made solely based on interview. The petitioner was also called for interview and appeared therein, though he was knowing that selection should have been made based on screening test. He did not make any protest on the procedure immediately after appearance in the interview or before declaration of result of successful candidates. The procedure of selection has been questioned in ignorance of the fact that candidate/s having appeared in the selection test with the procedure adopted and remained unsuccessful, is estopped to raise objection, if protest was not made before declaration of result.
In the instant case, even advertisement was containing selection based on screening test and interview yet knowing about it, the petitioner did not make protest for selection based on interview alone. He is, thus estopped to challenge the selection procedure. The view aforesaid is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik & Ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in 2008 (4) SCC 171. Relevant part of the judgment aforesaid is quoted hereunder:
8. In Madan Lal v. State of J&K [1995]1SCR90 , this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, 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, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out 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 the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the present case, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners- respondents herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.
9. In a recent judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh JT2007(12)SC407 at p.516 SCR this Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process.
We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court could have dismissed the appeal on this score alone as has been done by the learned Single Judge.
In view of judgment, referred to above, petitioner having remained unsuccessful in the interview cannot now challenge the procedure when he did not raise objection immediately after appearance in the interview or before result of successful candidates was declared.
Accordingly, the writ petition so as the stay application are dismissed.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.134 Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.