Chattisgarh High Court
Saurabh Singh vs Surguja University on 2 February, 2024
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:3563
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 919 of 2016
Order reserved on : 18/10/2023
Order passed on : 02/02/2024
Saurabh Singh, S/o Shri Gautam Singh Gaharwar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Opposite of Central Bank of India, Vijay Marg,
Gurunanak Ward, Ambikapur, P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Surguja University, Through Its Registrar, Ambikapur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New
Delhi 110002.
3. All India Council for Technical Education, 7 th Floor, Chandralok
Building, Janpad, New Delhi, 110001.
4. Maheedher Dubey, (Asst. Professor Electronics), S/o Shri
Sachidanand Dubey, Surguja University, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh.
5. Manoj Kumar Dewangan (Asst. Professor Electronics), S/o Shri
Sharwar Dewangan, Surguja University, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh.
6. Ankit Arora (Asst. Professor CSE), S/o Shri Ravindra Arora,
Surguja University, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh.
7. (Deleted) Ritesh Kumar Gupta As Per Honble Court Order Dated
06-03-2020.
8. Dipti Verma (Asst. Professor CSE), D/o Shri Krishna Kumar
Verma, Surguja University, Ambikapur, Surguja Chhattisgarh.
9. Ishwarlal Deshmukh (Asst. Professor CSE), S/o Shri Ratti Ram
Deshmukh, Surguja University, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
10. Mohan Rao Mamdikar, (Asst. Professor CSE), S/o Shri B.R.
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:3563
2
Mamdikar, Surguja University, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
11. Pooja Patre (Asst. Professor CSE), D/o Shri Chand Kumar Patre,
Surguja University, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja
(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
12. Jasmin Minj (Asst. Professor CSE), D/o Shri Rambir Minj, Surguja
University Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
13. Registrar Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University,
Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Singh, Petitioner in person For Respondents No.1 & 13 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Adv. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. B.S. Rajput, Adv. on behalf of Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ajit Singh, Adv.
For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Adv.
For Respondents No. 6 & 8: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Adv. with
Mr. Bharat Sharma, Adv.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
CAV Order
1. The petitioner preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-
10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any order/ direction or appropriate writ and set aside the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 by which the respondents no. 4 to 12 were selected on the post of Assistant Professor.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly take appropriate action under the applicable provision of law against then Registrar/ PIO (Mr. Rajendra Kumar Chauhan) of respondent Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 3 no. 1 for giving false and misleading information not only to petitioner but also to this Hon'ble Court.
10.3 It is also prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside selection and appointment of private respondents whose name was published in order no SUA/ Estt/ TA/ 1501/ 2014 date 08 July 2015 (SN. 18 to SN 26 only) and also pass an order to continue with the selection process from the point it stood vitiated under supervision/guidance of this Hon'ble Court.
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call all relevant documents from respondent no.1.(Petitioner is not challenging appointment of remaining candidates and remaining lists of Annexure P-1) 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner has been aggrieved by the order dated 08/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) by virtue of which respondents no. 4 to 12 had been selected on the post of Assistant Professor. An advertisement was issued by respondent no. 1 for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Principal and other non-teaching staff vide Annexure P/4. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Computer Science Engineering and Electronics Engineering. Copy of application forms are collectively annexed as Annexure P/2 and P/3. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview for the respective subjects vide interview call letters vide Annexure P/5 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 4 and P/6. Thereafter, a merit list was prepared but unfortunately, the petitioner could not make his place in the final merit list published. As an outcome, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P/7) under Right to Information Act, 2005 but the petitioner did not receive any reply until second hearing at CGSIC. Information sought by petitioner was malafidely denied by respondent no. 1 through his APIO whereby, petitioner moved first appeal under RTI Act, 2005 but again this appeal was disposed of by respondent no. 1 through its FAA/FAO. Further, petitioner moved to CGSIC for second appeal, thereafter CGSIC issued an order to provide information to petitioner, copy of order issued by CGSIC is hereby annexed with the petition as Annexure P/10. In compliance with the order passed by CGSIC, respondent no. 1 had provided misleading and incomplete information. Vide letter dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P/11), respondent no. 1 accepted the fact that there were no written documents available for meeting minutes of selection committee. After request had been made by the petitioner for providing true copy of all documents, the respondent no. 1 thereby vide letter dated 05.01.2016 (Annexure P/13) had quoted that meeting minutes of selection committee is same as recommended by selection committee which is contrary to first letter of respondent no. 1. Hence, this petition.
3. Petitioner in person submits that a petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No. 2739/2014 was preferred by one Dr. Devendra Nath Sharma alleging that his candidature was wrongly rejected by respondent No. 1. In said writ petition, the affidavit and reply Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 5 (Annexure P/17) was filed by the Registrar of the respondent No. 1 on 05.08.2014 and it is clear that respondent no.1 performed two phase of scrutiny and published two different lists on university website one on 8th May 2014 but malafidely did not mention the date of publication of second phase scrutiny list. In same affidavit, respondent no. 1 claimed that they gave opportunity to candidate for filing objection within 15 (fifteen) days from publication of short listed candidate and further it is extended to 23rd May 2014. There is nothing like publication of short listed candidates after second phase of scrutiny, thus, in said affidavit filed by Registrar of respondent no.1, respondent no.1 malafidely tried to provide misleading information to this Court. In said writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No. 2739/2014, the affidavit was filed by the Registrar of the respondent No. 1 on 05.08.2014. According to which, the Registrar submitted the minutes of committee. The said writ petition and the content of notification would make crystal clear that the scrutiny committee was constituted for the purpose of scrutiny of application forms of Professors and Associates Professors and not for Assistant Professor, as such, it is clear that respondent No. 1 malafidely tried to provide misleading information to this Court.
4. In Scrutiny Committee, all members of the scrutiny Committee were from the same University i.e. K.K.S. Bhavnagar University, Gujarat and meeting was also held in the said University & there is no one from respondent No.1- Surguja University, Ambikapur. The copy of minutes of meeting is annexed as Annexure P/19. On Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 6 subsequent meeting held at K.K.S. Bhavnagar University, Gujarat, screening was performed by different committees. No one was from respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 never disclosed selection procedure and distribution of marks neither in advertisement nor in reply of RTI Application of petitioner. No criteria were formulated/circulated by respondent No.1. The aforesaid facts and circumstances patently makes evident that the entire recruitment process completed through malpractice and total violation of statutory rules.
5. He further submit that respondent no. 1 is a state University and it is bound to follow rule/regulation of UGC. As per UGC norms (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 of UGC regulation, as per Sections 1.1.1, 4.4.6.1 (1), 5.1.0 and 5.1.1, qualifications were prescribed for certain posts. But in this case, respondent No.1 did not perform scrutiny of any applications (applications of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor). In whole procedure, respondent authority and selection committee was illegally performed the scrutiny and interviews, therefore, whole process is illegal. The recruitment process was mere a formality and it was done with an intention to adopt the tactics of favoritism and nepotism. One more perversity in the selection process was to give joining to number of candidates prior to declaration of result in website of respondent University. The aforesaid facts and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 7 circumstances patently makes evident that the entire recruitment process completed through malfeasance and in violation of statutory rules.
6. He further submits that when 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 held by the courts from time to time that where selections are to be made only on the basis of interview, then such interview/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. In the case, no efforts were made by the respondent no.1. therefore, the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) is liable to be set aside and appropriate action may be taken against the Registrar/ PIO (Mr. Rajendra Kumar Chauhan) for giving false and misleading information not only to petitioner but also to this Court and selection and appointment of private respondents may be set aside.
7. Reliance has been placed on this Court's order dated 30/11/2018 passed in WPS No. 7859 of 2018 (Mahendra Singh Parihar @ Mahendra Kumar Parihar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), order dated 28/10/2020 passed in WPS No. 3961 of 2020 (Ayush Medical Association Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and another connected matter, order dated 06/12/2017 passed by High Court of Uttrankhand at Nainital in Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 8 Writ Petition (SB) No. 298 of 2017 {Mahavir Singh Rawat & another Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others} and other connected matters, judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. in 1974 AIR 555, Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others passed in Appeal (civil) 3595-3612 of 1999 decided on 10.04.2006, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and anr. Etc. Etc. in 1995 AIR 77, order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 14234 of 2012 {Meghna Gill Vs. Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology and others}.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the respondent issued an advertisement dated 04.10.2013 inviting applications for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Principal and other non-teaching staff in Faculty /University College of Engineering. The petitioner applied for the post(s) of the Assistant Professor in the two subjects; i.e. 'Computer Science Engineering and in the subject of 'Electronics' under the unreserved category. The petitioner in addition to the above information also applied for the post of 'Registrar' of the 'University College of Engineering' established and run by the Sarguja University, which he intentionally did not mention in the present writ petition. This came to the notice of the University authorities only when, the petitioner after his not selection on the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 9 post(s) of Assistant Professor in the subjects of 'Computer Science Engineering' & in the subject of the 'Electronics Engineering' started approaching University officers and employees and tried to bargain and seek promise to select him on the post of the 'Registrar'. He as a part of his modus operandi started bring pressure on the University administration started putting application through under the RTI Act both through himself and his brother Vaibhav Singh moving on different tables and to the authorities telling that he will get all the appointments/ recruitment cancelled. Petitioner knew that he is not eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in any subject therefore, started trying for the post of Registrar of the college, which is equal to the Assistant Registrar of the University. No teacher will prefer to opt for Registrar when he is already a Assistant Professor or a Associate Professor. Failure in this regard by the petitioner has resulted in the filing of the present petition before this Court. In the present petition, since the grounds raised by the petitioner have no relevance with the present case/fact in issue / cause of action and with the appointment of respondent(s) No. 4 to 12. Thus, the 'petitioner is not approaching the Court with clean hands'. Respondent did not violate any statutory rules. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a graduate and post graduate from the engineering faculty. He completed his graduation from the engineering faculty in the subject of 'Computer Science engineering and the post- graduation from the same faculty but in the different subjects; i.e. Electronics and Tele Communication Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 10 Engineering with specialization in the VLSI Design. A Candidate, who has no post-graduation in 'Computer Science Engineering', does not have eligibility to become Assistant Professor in the subject of the 'Computer Science Engineering' since it is a basic condition/ condition precedent to become eligible/ qualified in the said subject. One cannot become eligible for the appointment in the subject of Computer Science Engineering only on the ground of the graduation in the computer Science Engineering and without having post-graduation in the Computer Science Engineering. As well as a candidate, who has no graduation in the 'Electronics Engineering', does not have eligibility to become Assistant Professor in the subject of 'Electronics Engineering', since he will be required to teach this subject at the graduate level also.
9. A candidate applying for the post of Assistant Professor in any subject of the engineering must have passed his both the degree; i.e. graduation and the post-graduation in the same subject. Thus, the petitioner is not eligible for the post of the Assistant Professor as he does not possess the requisite qualification in both the subjects he applied. This Court has also held the same precedent in the case of Reshamlal Pradhan Vs. State of C.G. and other in W.P.S. No. 3169 of 2015. A copy of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 08.12.2015 is filed herewith as Annexure-R-1/2. Thus, the petitioner was called for the interview in both the subjects by way of only extra caution otherwise neither he is eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in the 'Computer Science Engineering', and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 11 nor in the subject of 'Electronics Engineering'. Thus, there is no locus for the petitioner to file the present petition. The Director of Technical Education, State of Chhattisgarh wrote a letter to the Registrar of the Sarguja University mentioning that a candidate for the teaching posts under the faculty of Engineering & Technology will be eligible for the said posts only when he passed graduation and post graduation with the same subject. Copy of the said letter is filed herewith as Annexure R-1/3. Likewise, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission also adopted the same principle of common/ same subject both in the selection for teaching posts are required as a mandatory requirement for appointment as teacher in the faculty of Engineering & Technology. Accordingly, no candidate was found to be qualified for selection of teachers posts notified in July 2015. Copy of the CGPSC letter is filed herewith as Annexure R-1/4.4. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court examined the issue as to whether the degree in Electrical Engineering would be equivalent to the degree in Electrical & Electronics Engineering in W.P.(S) No.2992/2015 (Sudhir Dewangan vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 14- 09-2015. In the light of above decision, the petitioner cannot be claimed that the degree in the Subject of Electronic is equivalent with the degree in the subject of 'Computer Science Engineering' as both are entirely different subjects. The instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. There are 24 months of delay in filing the instant petition. The appointment order of the respondents No. 4 to 12 was issued Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 12 on 8th July 2014. therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Petitioner 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 and when he was not selected then he challenged the selection process. 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. It is well settled law, 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.
10. Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the recruitment of respondents No. 4 to 12. The selection does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Petitioner, being unsuccessful candidate, cannot challenge the legality or fairness of the selection process. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case, experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work, research and teaching capabilities with its skill and aptitude of the petitioner and thereafter, recommendations was made. The Selection Committee duly constituted by the University as per provision of the University Act, 1973, consisting of highly qualified distinguished experts, had evaluated the qualification, experience, skill and aptitude in Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 13 teaching and research of the candidates, including the petitioner. The Selection Committee(s) prepared panel in the order of merit which was open before the Executive Council of the respondent University and since the appointing authority accepted the recommendation, thus, the respondent University issued the appointment order in the favour of the respondents No. 4 to 12 in accordance with law. Selection Committee(s) carefully examined and scrutinized the qualification, experience, skill and aptitude in teaching and research of the all those candidates appeared in the interview before recommending the panel for appointment as Assistant professor. The Selection Committee(s) in fact made unanimous recommendation after scrutinizing the merits and de- merits of each candidate and its recommendations were accepted by the Executive Council of the University.
11. Further the petitioner did not furnish any material on record, pointing out discrimination & arbitrariness on the part of the selection Committee in selection process of the Assistant Professors in the subjects of Computer Science Engineering and the Electronics Engineering.
12. The academic question cannot be decided by the Court and the court should refrain from entertaining such petitions. The petition of the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and misconceived and has been filed by leveling bald and wild allegation and made unwanted comments against the answering respondents without any basis, in fact the petitioner is misleading/ suppressing the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 14 material facts before this Court and he has not come with the clean hands as well, therefore the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of D. Sarojakumar Vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others, (2017) 9 SCC 478 and judgment dated 06.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (SB) No. 298 of 2017 {Mahavir Singh Rawat & another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and other connected matters}, this Court's order dated 14.09.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2992 of 2015 {Sudhir Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others}.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is no allegation against respondent UGC and no grievance of the petitioner has arisen out of any act or omission attributable to the respondent UGC and no relief has been sought against the answering respondent. Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed against respondent No.2.
15. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that this petition has been filed by the petitioner after long delay. Petitioner has filed the instant petition on 16.03.2016 challenging the impugned order 08.07.2014 passed by respondent No.1. After issuing notices and lapse of four years the petitioner belatedly incorporated the amendment seeking benefits of public notice Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 15 dated 27.02.2020 which is no avail to him.
16. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 also opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the selection committee was duly constituted by the Sarguja University as per the provisions of Section 49 of the University Act, 1973 consisting of highly qualified, distinguished experts and committee had evaluated the qualification, experience of the candidates after that the selection committee prepared the panel in the order of merit, which was opened before the executive council of the University. The appointing authority have been accepted the recommendation thus the respondent University issued the appointment letter in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5. Respondents No. 4 & 5 were appointed vide order dated 08.07.2014 by respondent No. 1 Sarguja University. The petitioner filed the instant petition in the year 2016 without justification of delay of 2 years, therefore, in light of order passed in W.A. No. 170/2013 {Alok Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others}, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot challenge the illegality or fairness of the selection process. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the legality of the selection process on the ground that the same was not in conformity with the rules because he has become unsuccessful, he cannot challenge the validity of recruitment process on the ground of violation of statutory rules in the recruitment process. In recent judgment of Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.09.2015 in WPS No. 2992/2015 {Sudhir Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 16 Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others} on the issue of whether the degree in Electrical Engineering would be equivalent to the degree in Electrical & Electronics Engineering, this Court clarified that it is not open for the Court of in academic matters to declare equivalence of courses as may have been advertised by the employer. Therefore, this petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
17. Learned counsel for respondents No. 6 and 8 opposing the contentions made by the petitioner submits that it is well settled principles of law that if a candidate is found eligible to be called in the interview, he cannot claim relief on this ground wherever there was a doubt with regard to the eligibility, the concerned candidate was called in interview. The interviews were conducted in legal and judicious manner and the candidates were assessed on the basis of academic background experience and aptitude in the field of teaching and research along with interview performances. The petitioner participated in the whole recruitment process till its get finalized and raised no objection and when he did not find his name in the selection list in both the subjects applied for, he started raising objection, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
18. Reliance placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vikas Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others & other connected matters, (2013) 14 SCC 494, Ramesh Chandra Shah and others Vs. Anil Joshi Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 17 and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309, Madan Lal Vs. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (2014) 15 SCC 308, order dated 18.05.2018 passed in W.P. No. 10369 of 2018 in the matter of Poonam Nayak and others Vs. Secretary, MPPSC, Indore, order dated 14.08.2012 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in the matter of Radhika D/o Vinay Kumar Dubey and others Vs. Professional Examination Education Board, Bhopal and another, 2012 (4) MPLJ 388 and this Court's order dated 11.09.2014 passed in WA No. 170/2013 in the matter of Alok Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and other connected matters.
19. In its reply, respondent No.13 also opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the appointments in the selection process were made under the aegis of respondent No.1 only and respondent No. 13 have no involvement whatsoever in the entire selection process. Vide order dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure R- 13/1), the constituent college of Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya i.e. University Engineering College Lakhanpur was transferred to the Respondent University (CSVTU) with transfer if assets and liabilities and was made its constituent college.
20. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
21. It is not disputed in this case that the advertisement dated 04.10.2013 was issued and petitioner and private respondents Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 18 appeared in the selection process and by impugned order dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure P/1), respondents No. 4 to 12 were selected on the post of Assistant Professor. It is also not disputed that the petitioner appeared in the selection process, however he was not selected by the selection committee. Impugned order was passed on 08.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) and this petition is filed by the petitioner on 16.03.2016.
22. This Court in the matter of Alok Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and another connected matter in W.P. No. 170/2013 vide order dated 11.09.2014 observed in paras 17, 18 and 22 as under:-
17. Delay has always been considered vital in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction. The discretion to be exercised for condoning delay has to be judicious and cautious so as not to restore a cause of action which may be dead or may have became stale or where third party rights may have accrued and fructified.
While no rigid definition or standard yardstick is possible to hold what will amount to delay and what shall not amount to delay it shall have to be considered in relation to the facts and circumstances of each case.
18. In (1969) 1 SCC 185 (Durga Prashad v. Controller of Imports and Exports) it was observed as follows :-
3. It is well-settled that the relief under Article 226 is discretionary, and one ground for refusing relief under Article 226 is that the petitioner has filed the petition after delay for which there is satisfactory explanation. No 4. Gajendragadkar, C.J., speaking for the Constitution Bench, in Smt Narayani Devi Khaitan. v. State of Bihar observed: "It is well-settled that under Article 226, the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary. There can be no doubt that if a citizen moves the High Court under Article 226 and contends that his fundamental rights have been contravened by any executive action, the High Court would naturally like to give relief to him; but even in such a case, if the petitioner has been guilty of laches, and there are other relevant circumstances which indicate that it would be inappropriate for the High Court to exercise its high prerogative jurisdiction in Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 19 favour of the petitioner, ends of justice may require that the High Court should refuse to issue a writ. There can be little doubt that if it is shown that a party moving the High Court under Article 226 for a writ is, in substance, claiming a relief which under the law of limitation was barred at the time when the writ petition was filed, the High Court would refuse to grant any relief in its writ jurisdiction. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. That is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the High Court and like all matters left to the discretion of the Court, in this matter too discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably."
22. A rank illegal selection of an ineligible would be an entirely different matter from a claim of being better suited. In the former delay may be irrelevant while in the latter it will be crucial.
23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vikas Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of Chhattisgaryhh and others & other connected matters, (2013) 14 SCC 494 held in paras 27 and 28 as under-:
27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-
evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service.
28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 20
24. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madan Lal Vs. High court of Jammu and Kashmir, (2014) 15 SCC 308 in para 10 as under:-
10. As we have found that the challenge made to the selection was not justified on merits and also on the ground that the appellants had no grievance against any of the selected candidates, these appeals fail. That apart, as the appellants had no grievance as against the selected candidates and the challenge in the writ petition as well as in these appeals are as pro bono publico, these appeals cannot be entertained since as per the guidelines of this Court as well as based on the earlier decisions of this Court wherein it was held that public interest litigation in service matters cannot be entertained. Therefore, on all the above grounds the appeals fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.
25. In the matter of D. Sarojakumar Vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others, (2017) 9 SCC 478, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 11 as under:-
11. As far as the present case is concerned, an advertisement was issued by Respondent 6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent 1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this, we need not go into the other issues raised.
26. This Court is not in agreement with the submission of petitioner in Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3563 21 person that the whole recruitment process carried out with malafide intention for the reason that the petitioner participated in the whole recruitment process till it gets finalized and remained quiet but he started questioning the constitution of committee and its process with regard to appointment when his name was not found in the selection list.
27. In view of aforesaid discussion and in light of aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court referred hereinabove, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) and, therefore, the instant petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi