Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Upto this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the Kumar Vimal concerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a CWP No.20729 of 2008 & other connected matters 16 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, that they have filed this petition. It is now well settled 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 or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285: AIR 1986 SC 1043, 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, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
"In the circumstances, the petitioners appear to have raised grievance to assail the result of the entrance test only when they did not find the result favourable to them. It is well settled that a candidate who has submitted to the selection process and has participated and was considered cannot challenge the same if subsequently the result of the selection is not favourable to him. It has been so held in the decision of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : AIR 1995 SC 1088 and Mohan Lal Aggarwal v. Bhubaneswari Prasad Mishra, JT 2001 (9) SC 21."

In view of the aforesaid judgments, the post advertised stood filled up with the joining of Ms. Praveen Bali. The subsequent termination of services will not give rise to any right of appointment to the candidates in the waiting list, but such resultant post is required to be filled up in the subsequent selection process in accordance with law.

The last of the arguments is that the High Court has not taken into consideration anticipated vacancies while issuing advertisement for filling up 21 posts of Punjab Superior Judicial Services. Such argument has been considered and negated by this Court in CWP No.14467 of 2011 titled "Mayank Khosla & others Vs. State of Punjab & others" decided on 28.03.2012, wherein relying upon State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220, S.S.Balu Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC 479 and State of M.P. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Pathak (2008) 1 SCC 456, it was held to the following effect: