Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: selection process completed in Shri S. Prabhakar Rao vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 2 January, 2007Matching Fragments
14. The respondents have launched frontal attack to the petitioner's case by pleading that the petitioner having participated in the selection process is estopped from challenging its fairness. According to the respondents, the petitioner should have challenged the constitution of the Search Committee or at least should have objected to the presence of respondent No. 4 in it when it was the petitioner's turn to appear before it. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not know the constitution of the Search Committee. Nor is it the case of the petitioner that he was surprised to find the respondent No. 4 in the Search Committee. The petitioner, nonetheless, participated in the selection process. The selection process was complete on 30.7.2005 itself. It is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner now cannot be allowed to challenge such selection process. Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Ors. v. Shakuntala Shuila and Ors. and to an earlier case of Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Ors. . The judgment in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari & Others itself refers to a large number of decisions on this point. After examining the law on this point rendered by various previous judgments, the conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court is the following:
There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems 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.
15. The petitioner's participation in the selection process was complete when the petitioner appeared in the interview on 30.7.2005. He appeared without any demur. The recommendations were sent to the Board of Directors on the same day. The petitioner's participation, thus, does stop him from challenging the fairness of the selection process.