Anuj Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Pramath Patnaik, J

In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the advertisement no.18 dated 07.07.2009 published by the Jharkhand Combined

Entrance Competitive Examination Board for the post of Untrained Instructor of Industrial Training. Further, prayer has been made for stay of the

appointment of untrained Instructor.

The brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner having passed the Industrial Training Institute Examination from

Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh in the year 1997, was working as Mechanic in Motor Vehicle Trade for about 5 years in K.N. Construction Private

Limited, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner has completed a course of one year Advance Training Institute from ATI, Hyderabad in the year

2009 and obtained the said certificate. In pursuance to advertisement no.18 dated 07.07.2009 for the post of Industrial Training Institute Instructor in

several trades, the petitioner submitted his application and participated in the examination on 18.07.2010. In the said examination, the petitioner having

secured 44 marks, his position in the Combined Merit List was 50 and the minimum qualification marks of General Category candidate is 40.

Thereafter, counselling for the said post of the selected candidate continued. Being aggrieved by the non-selection on the aforesaid post, the petitioner

has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondents have selected the candidates having less qualification compared to the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the selection of the candidate on the post in question is in violation of the guidelines

of the Central Government which is not only illegal but also amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. During course of hearing learned counsel for the

petitioner has referred to I.A. No.2196 of 2011 more particularly paragraph 6 where the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been

reiterated.

Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.3 wherein it has been stated that the

Government of Jharkhand has taken policy decision to frame rules with respect to appointment, promotion and service conditions in Group-C of the

Industrial Training Department and vide notification no.1049 dated 28.11.2008, the Government of Jharkhand framed rules namely Jharkhand

Industrial Training Service/Cadre (under Group-C on the non Gazettes Posts Appointment, Promotion and Service Condition) Rules 2008 (in short

Rules 2008) and minimum qualification for appointment on the post of instructor and for other post has been fixed as per schedule annexed with the

said Rules 2008. The Personnel Department and State Cabinet have approved the same and assent of the Governor of the State has also been

obtained. For example for the post of Craft Instructor, the minimum qualification has been fixed as under:-

(a) Matriculation;

(b) Passed ITI training in concerned trade or degree/diploma in concerned trade;

(c) Possess 5 years’ experience (from recognized industrial organization or from State or Central Govt. recognized training institution).

Further, it has been submitted that the criteria for appointment on the post of craft instructor, a candidate who is possessing two years course of

ITI/three year course of diploma has to submit 3 and 2 years’ experience certificate respectively from the recognized Industrial Organization or

from State or Central Government recognized training institution. Therefore, the said Rules 2008 have been framed for the benefit of all deserving

candidate and a general condition for the appointment on the post of instructors or for other posts in the training department has been fixed in

accordance with law, as evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is exclusively within the domain of the State to frame the policy decision by fixing minimum

qualification and experience for appointment in any post. Moreover, the policy decision of the State Government is not subject to judicial review unless

it is tainted with mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the law is well settled that a

person having participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the process of selection. In this respect, learned counsel for the

State has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos.8345-8346 of 2009 (D. Saroja Kumari vs. R. Helen

Thilakom & Ors.)

Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to accede to the

prayer of the petitioner, in view of the following facts and reasons:

(I) Admittedly, the petitioner in pursuance to the advertisement participated in the process of selection and after having been disqualified, he has

challenged the process of selection on the ground that the guidelines of Central Government has not been adhered to.Â

(II) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J & K & Ors. reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486, at paragraph 9, has been

pleased to hold:

“9. …… Thus the petitioners took a 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, 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 …..â€​

(III) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576, at paragraph 16, has

been pleased to hold:

“16. …….. Surely, if the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The

petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the

merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not

commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.â€​

(IV) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others vs. Anil Joshi and Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309, at

paragraph 24, has been pleased to hold:

“24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with

full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or

methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error

by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.â€​Â

(V) Same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another vs. Dr. K.

Sivasubramaniyan and Ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454.

(VI) There is no denying of the fact that none of the selected candidates have secured less marks than the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner’s

grievance for not being selected cannot have any justifiable grounds.

In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), this Court is not

inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the writ petition, I.A. No.2196 of 2011 also stands dismissed.