Chattisgarh High Court
Dr Bhoj Singh & Another vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 20 March, 2012
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S NO 6577 OF 2011
Dr Bhoj Singh & Another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh and others
...Respondents
! Shri Sandeep Dubey Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri P K Bhaduri Panel Lawyer for the State Shri Amrito Das Shri Shashank Thakur & Shri Mateen Siddique Advocate for the
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 20/03/2012
: Judgement
ORDER
(Passed on this 20th day of March, 2012) (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
1. Challenge in this petition is to the legality and the validity of the select list dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure P/1) whereunder the merit list has been prepared for appointment on the post of District Ayurved Officer.
2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.10.2009 (Annexure P/4), the petitioners working as Ayurved Medical Officers applied for the recruitment to the post of District Ayurved Officer. The requisite qualification and experience prescribed in the advertisement was graduation in Ayurved with internship by the recognized institute registered with Bhartiya Chikitsa Kendriya Parishad and working as Ayurved Officer in a Government Hospital or in a Dispensary for minimum 5 years. Clause 8.2 of the advertisement prescribes that on scrutiny of the applications received from the applicants there may be a written examination for short listing of the candidates. If there is a written examination, the candidates will be informed and if written examination was not thought necessary, the applicants will be considered through interview after short listing and for that the applicants would be notified. The petitioners appeared in the interview and were unsuccessful. Thus, this petition.
3. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the recruitment on the post can be only through written test, not through interview only. Secondly there was a provision of holding written examination in the advertisement and the holding of written examination, without any reason, cannot be dispensed with.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the P.S.C. submits for the written examination was not a necessary condition, as clearly stated in clause 8.2 of the advertisement that in case more applications were received, this was one of the method for short listing of the candidates. The number of the applications was not such asto hold written examination and thereafter, call for interview. The provision mentioned in clause 8.2 of the advertisement is clear and unambiguous. Learned counsel appearing for successful candidates also submit accordingly.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Clause 8.2 of the advertisement does not prescribe for holding written examination necessarily, but simply provides that if written examination is proposed to be held the candidates will be informed accordingly and otherwise, the candidates will be informed for interview. There is no mandatory condition to hold written examination before holding interview for short listing. This appears to be a case of appointment of District Ayurved Officer wherein there was only 4 seats available and as submitted by the learned counsel for the P.S.C. the applications were not so much as it became necessary to hold a separate written examination.
6. It is well settled principle of law that if there was any illegality by not conducting the written examination, the petitioners ought to have raised the issue before participating in the interview.
7. The Supreme Court in Sadananda Halo & Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others1, observed as under :
"59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar where one of us (Sinha, J.) was a party. This was a case where different cut off marks were fixed for the unreserved candidates and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates. This Court in para 10 of its judgment endorsed the action and recorded a finding that there was a power in the employer to fix the cut off marks which power was neither denied nor disputed and further that the cut off marks were fixed on a rationale basis and, therefore, no exception could be taken. The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise. The Court further made observations in para 34 of the judgment to the effect : (S. Vinodh Kumar case, SCC p.107, para 19) '19...'34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, 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 there was some lacuna in the process.' In para 20 this Court further observed that there are certain exceptions to the aforementioned rule. However, the court did not go into those exceptions since the same were not material."
8. The Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another2 observed as under :
"6..The Selection Board or the Commission has to decide as to what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidates amongst the applicants. In most of the services, screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the numbers of the candidates who have to be called for interview. Such screening tests or written tests have been provided in the concerned statutes or prospectus which govern the selection of the candidates. But where the selection is to be made only on basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. It has been impressed by the courts from time to time that where selections are to be made only on the basis of interview, then such interviews/viva voce tests must be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of the candidate."
9. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case wherein the petitioners have not raised objection before publication of select list and also for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed, accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
J U D G E