Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: selection process completed in Jayasri Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 October, 2013Matching Fragments
14. Now, the other question falls for decision. 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 declined by applying the principles of estoppel, acquiescence and/or waiver. The decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard are legion. Paragraph 38 of the Bench decision of this Court in Kenaram Biswas (supra) refers to most of the decisions where the aforesaid principles were applied. It is of utmost importance to note one common thread that passes through all the decisions, i.e. awareness of the unsuccessful candidate of the manner in which the selection process would be conducted and completed. Despite the process being likely to be conducted either in ignorance or deviation of a rule, which is binding on the employer, or the constitution of the Selection Committee is strictly not in accordance with the requirement of the governing rules/guidelines, the candidate being aware thereof approached the Court and wished the Court to undo the irregularity after he had taken a chance of selection albeit unsuccessfully. There can be no doubt that such litigation must be nipped in the bud.
23. Apart from the decision in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke (supra), which is also a decision of three learned Judges, the decision in Raj Kumar (supra) is an authority on the point that should glaring illegalities in the selection procedure be demonstrated before the Court, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence would have no application.
24. I am of the clear view that if a glaring illegality in the selection procedure is demonstrated before the Court affecting one's right protected by Articles 14 and 16, an unsuccessful candidate (if he/she can prove to the satisfaction of the Court that such glaring illegality could not have been known to him/her before the selection process was complete and that he/she came to learn of the same after completion of the selection process) can legitimately question a concluded selection process.