Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jitender Guleria vs Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha And ... on 10 August, 2017
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4771 of 2015 .
Judgment reserved on: 01.08.2017 Date of decision: August 10th, 2017.
Jitender Guleria ...Petitioner.
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and others ..Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 3.
Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.2.
Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming therein the following substantial reliefs:
"(A) That the recommendation of respondent No.4 for the post of Clerk pursuant to the advertisement dated 7.8.2015, Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and further respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to appoint petitioner to the post of Clerk being more meritorious and more qualified with all consequential benefits.
(B) That a fresh scrutiny of selected candidates be subjected to a fresh interview before a Interview Board constituted by this Hon'ble Court.1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 2
2. The respondent No.1 advertised one post of Clerk to be filled up from the General Category under 'Limited Direct .
Recruitment Scheme' for Class IV employees. The interested candidates were requested to submit their written consent on or before 17.8.2015 in the office of respondent No.1 as per advertisement, a copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1.
3. The petitioner submitted his written consent to respondent No.1 and vide letter dated 2.9.2015 he was informed that he has been permitted to sit in the competitive examination to be held on 14.9.2015 at 11.00 a.m. In terms of Rule 7-A of the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 (for short, Service Rules), a selection committee came to be constituted by the Hon'ble Speaker for holding the interviews to be held on 14th & 15th September, 2015 at 11.00 a.m. In all, seven candidates appeared in the competitive examination out of which only two persons qualified i.e. petitioner and respondent No.4. The petitioner secured 50 marks out of 50 marks, whereas respondent No.4 secured 48 marks out of 50 marks. The petitioner and respondent No.4 thereafter underwent the typing test in which both of them qualified and were thereafter called for interview. In the said interview, the petitioner was awarded 4 marks, whereas the respondent No.4 was awarded 6 ½ marks, out of 8 marks.
Resultantly, it was the respondent No.4, who came to be selected ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 3 having obtained 54½ marks out of 58 marks, whereas the petitioner only secured 54 marks.
.
4. Aggrieved by the selection of respondent No.4, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition inter alia on the ground that the selection of respondent No.4 has been done in an illegal and arbitrary manner and the same smacks of malafides as the selection committee has awarded more marks to respondent No.4 just to ensure his appointment, even though, the petitioner is having a better academic record and was more qualified and had faired better. It is further averred that since the respondent No.4 was designated as Library Attendant, but was deputed in the house of Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, therefore, there was every possibility of his have influenced the selection committee while holding interview for the aforesaid post. Lastly, it is averred that the selection was to be made on the basis of the Service Rules which did not provide for viva-voce or interview and, therefore, the selection deserves to be quashed and set-aside or in the alternative, the marks for interview are required to be ignored while making the selection.
5. The respondents No.1 and 3 i.e. Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and Selection Committee have filed joint reply wherein it has been averred that even though the Service Rules do not provide for viva-voce or interview, but there are instructions/guidelines issued by the Government in respect of recruitment of various categories of employees of the State which ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 4 have been adopted by the respondent. That apart, the respondents framed Regulations known as "Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha .
Secretariat Regulations, 2002 wherein Regulation-7 contemplates as under:
"(i) The Secretary shall exercise all the powers of the Secretary to the Government, both administrative and financial, that have been or may hereinafter be notified by the State Government for the Secretary to the Government from time to time or such powers as may be delegated to him by the Speaker from time to time under the rules.
(ii) All cases of administrative and financial power beyond the competency of the Secretary shall be put up to the Speaker for his approval. All such administrative and financial sanctions shall be issued in the name of the Speaker by the Secretary."
6. It has been denied that respondent No.4 was ever deputed in the residence/house of the Secretary of the respondent No.1. On merits, it has been submitted that irrespective of caste, colour, creed, religion and region of the candidates, who appeared before the selection committee were treated equally and the entire selection process had been carried out in a fair, transparent and legal manner, strictly as per the advertisement for the post in question. Since respondent No.4 was found to be the best and most suitable, he was accordingly selected. The selection was made not only on the basis of the academic qualification alone, but on the over all performance of the candidate. It is further averred that the Government of Himachal Pradesh has recently issued instructions dated 17.4.2017 whereby it has been clarified ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 5 that henceforth there would be no interviews for Class-III and Class-IV posts in the State of Himachal Pradesh .
7. The respondent No.4, who is the selected candidate, has filed a separate reply wherein he has raised preliminary submission regarding maintainability of the petition claiming therein that the same does not disclose any cause of action. In addition thereto, it has been contended that the petitioner with his eyes wide open had appeared before the selection committee knowing fully well about the terms and conditions and procedure for selection and having taken a chance and not qualified, he cannot turn around and question the selection process and the present petition being an after thought, is not maintainable. He has further denied that he ever remained posted/deputed in the house/residence of the Secretary, H.P. Vidhan Sabha. On merits, these averments have been reiterated and it is not necessary to reproduce the same in detail.
8. The petitioner has filed rejoinders to the replies of the respondents wherein the averments made in the petition have been reiterated.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully and meticulously.
9. It is settled law that a process of selection cannot be challenged by an unsuccessful candidate by pointing to certain irregularities here and there in the process of which he was aware, once the result is not to his liking. Relief, in such a case, is ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 6 declined by applying the principles of estoppel, acquiescence and/or waiver. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made .
to the two recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. In Madras Institute of Development Studies and another vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others (2016) 1 SCC 454, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
12. The contention of the respondent no.1 that the short-
listing of the candidates was done by few professors bypassing the Director and the Chairman does not appear to be correct. From perusal of the documents available on record it appears that short-listing of the candidates was done by the Director in consultation with the Chairman and also senior Professors. Further it appears that the Committee constituted for the purpose of selection consists of eminent Scientists, Professor of Economic Studies and Planning and other members. The integrity of these members of the Committee has not been doubted by the respondent- writ petitioner. It is well settled that the decision of the Academic Authorities about the suitability of a candidate to be appointed as Associate Professor in a research institute cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the fact that the candidates so selected possessed all requisite qualifications and experience and, therefore, their appointment cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of qualification and experience. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Institute in appointing respondent nos. 2 to 4 on the post of Associate Professor.
13. Be that as it may, the respondent, without raising any objection to the alleged variations in the contents of the advertisement and the Rules, submitted his application and participated in the selection process by appearing before the ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 7 Committee of experts. It was only after he was not selected for appointment, turned around and challenged the very selection process. Curiously enough, in the writ petition the .
only relief sought for is to quash the order of appointment without seeking any relief as regards his candidature and entitlement to the said post.
14. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.
15. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585, a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held: (SCC P. 591, para 15) "15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee.This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal vs. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 where in more or ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 8 less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of .
waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: (AIR p.432, para 9) '9. ....It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of r raising the present technical point.' "
16. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J & K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that: (SCC p. 493, para 9) "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at 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, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 9 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 case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, 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, r the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
17. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: (SCC p. 584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 1018. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under: (SCC .
p. 320, para 24) "24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
19. So far as the finding recorded by the Division Bench on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the appellant Institute is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, we are not bound to go into that question, which is kept open."
11. In Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Bihar and others (2017) 4 SCC 357, a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under:
"13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla[4], this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 11 the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that :
.
(SCC p.107, para 18) "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724)".
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah (2009) 3 SCC 227, where it was held to be well settled that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
15. In Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations: (SCC p.584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 12 questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may .
be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v.
State of J. and K. (1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
(2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v.State of Uttaranchal and Ors.(2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 515."
16. r In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that: (SCC p. 318, para 18) "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 13 thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome."
18. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur[11], it .
was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non- selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey (2015) 11 SCC 493,this Court held that: (SCC p.500, para
17) :
"17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had r participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted."
This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam's case (supra).".
12. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the above said proposition would apply only to cases where the selection is made in accordance with the provision of the Rules and not where the selection has been made dehors the Rules. In support of his contention, strong reliance is placed on ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 14 the judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar and others vs. Shakti Raj and others (1997) 9 SCC .
527, wherein it was observed as under:
"16. Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the post from the purview of the Board, but after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rule and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 notification and the post were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the condidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal vs. State of & K [(1995) 3 SCC 486] and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the selection Board or the method of Selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under 1955 Rules, So also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case, thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action take by the Government are not correct in law."
13. He would further submit that the plea of estoppel is otherwise not available to the respondents as the selection process has not been conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection process, which needs to be scrupulously maintained and ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 15 the respondents could not have introduced an additional mode of selection by prescribing interview, which otherwise was not .
stipulated in the Rules and has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and others (2011) 12 SCC 85 wherein it was held as under:
"29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 16 the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before .
appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No. 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
14. Even though, many other judgments have been cited at the Bar, however, I find the issue to be no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (2008) 4 SCC 171 the facts therein was that an advertisement was issued on 24.6.2002 for Garhwal Region for the selection and appointment of the Physical Education Teachers (L.T.Grade) for which the requisite qualification indicated in the advertisement is B.P.E. or Graduate with Diploma in Physical Education. The unsuccessful candidates in the interview challenged the selection on various grounds. One of the grounds was that the advertisement and selection were not based in accordance with the Rules called U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983. The writ petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge. However, on appeal by the unsuccessful candidates, the order of the Single Judge was reversed and the appeals were allowed. It was in such factual background that the matter reached in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it observed as follows:
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 17"7. It is not disputed that the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly .
indicated in the advertisement itself as B.P.E. or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules.
** ** ** ** **
9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent-writ petitioners 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.
10. In a recent judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCR 506 at p.516, 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.
11. 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."
15. A perusal of paragraphs 7 and 9 (supra) would clearly go to show that the writ petitioners therein participated in the ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 18 selection process without any demur and it was held that they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in .
accordance with the Rules and if they knew that the advertisement and selection process was not in accordance with the Rules, they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process and, therefore, the writ petition of such candidates after having participated in the selection process was held to be not maintainable.
16. Even in the instant case, as already observed, the petitioner was duly informed vide letter dated 2.9.2015 that he had been permitted to sit in the competitive examination to be held on 14.9.2015 at 11.00 a.m. and in case he is successful, he would be interviewed by a selection committee on 14th and 15th September, 2015 at 11.00 a.m.
17. During the course of hearing, it has been informed by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that it is not for the first time that the petitioner is appearing for the post in question, but had on four earlier occasions participated in similar selection process without any demur even though in such selection, interviews were held. Therefore, this is an additional ground to reject the claim of the petitioner.
18. In view of what has been stated above, it can conveniently be held that the ratio laid down in Raj Kumar's case ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 19 (supra) and Bedanga Talukdar's case (supra) as relied upon by the petitioner are clearly not applicable to the facts of the case as .
the petitioner participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the interview was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself. Having unsuccessful participated in the process selection without any demur, he is estopped from challenging the selection criteria inter alia that the advertisement and the selection with regard to the interview was contrary to the Rules.
19. However, it needs to be clarified that the dimension or degree of illegality in the selection process is a factor while applying the principle of waiver or estoppel to non-suit unsuccessful participants from a proceeding brought to invalidate the selection process. However, it is not an absolute proposition of law that unsuccessful candidates would not in any circumstances be entitled to question the process for recruitment in which they are participated. One such example would be where there are glaring defects in the selection, there could be similar other instances like violation of Act 14 etc., but insofar as the instant case is concerned, the ratio of the judgment in Dhananjay Malik's case (supra) is fully attracted.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner having taken a chance in the selection process including the interview and having not qualified the same, cannot turn around and question the selection ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP 20 process and the present petition being an after thought, is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, so also the .
pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
August 10th, 2017. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), (GR) Judge r to ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2017 23:56:38 :::HCHP