Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of delay. The selection process was completed in the year 1998-99. It was challenged by the petitioner in the year 2001 by filing a writ petition in which the petitioner/appellant had set up a case that he had a degree from a university, which ought to have been accepted as a recognised degree and, therefore, the petitioner was eligible and ought to have been considered. Be that as it may, when the selection process was over in the year 1998-99 it could not have been challenged in the year 2001.

6. It follows from these discussions of the Apex Court that a finality is to be attached to the selection process. It cannot be allowed to remain open and continuing, if that be so, rights of candidates who acquire eligibility subsequently will be adversely affected and that will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Selection process has a life and it cannot be extended except as permitted by relevant service Rules.

7. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, we are unable to subscribe to the judgment rendered in the case of Chanda. Devi by this Court. We are of the considered view that once the selection process is over, it cannot be reopened. Once appointments are made interests of appointed candidates come into play. When the number of seats are limited, relief cannot be given to any petitioner without displacing a candidate who has already joined. Therefore, as a matter of sound legal and equitable policy a selection process already completed ought not to be disturbed normally.