Ashish Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the opposite parties published an advertisement for the post of Seenchpal in the daily newspaper. The Petitioner being fully qualified and being eligible for appointment applied for appointment on the said post. The Petitioner was called for the interview but he was declared unsuccessful arbitrarily.

It has been argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Selection Committee, which was constituted for the selection of the candidates were not constituted properly as there were no representation of all class/community. The Executive Engineer, who was the Chairman of the Committee, had acted in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and selected candidates of his choice. Therefore, it has been prayed that the entire selection process conducted for the post of Seenchpal shall be cancelled and fresh selection shall be conducted.

Refuting the allegations of the Petitioner''s Counsel, it has been submitted by Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State that the Petitioner appeared in the selection process without any demur and when he was declared unsuccessful, he has made all sort of allegations that the Committee was not properly constituted and it was bias. The appointments were made strictly in accordance with the provisions with Rules and there is no irregularity. The persons, who were found eligible by the Selection Committee were only given appointment.

It has been argued that when the Petitioner has taken a calculated chance and appeared at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview was not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted.

In support of the above contentions, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, ; Dhananjay Malik and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, and Union of India and Ors. v. S. Vinodh Kumar and others. 2007 (69) ALR 512 (SC) : 2007 (59) AIC 214 (SC)

In Vinodh Kumar''s case (supra), the Apex Court held that those candidates, who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.

In Dhananjay Malik''s case (supra), the Hon''bel Apex Court observed in paragraph-9 of the report as under:

In the present case, as already pointed out, the Respondent-writ Petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with Rules, they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.

Placing reliance on Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, it has been submitted that cases where selection process can be said to be tainted has been summarized by the Apex Court as under:

(i) Cases where the "event" has been investigated.

(ii) Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was completed or a preliminary investigation was concluded.

(iii) Cases where the selection was made but appointment was not made.

(iv) Cases where the candidates were also ineligible and the appointments were found to be contrary to law or rules.

In any view of the matter, the Petitioner appeared in the competitive examination against the posts which were advertised and were public post. He did not have any vested right for appointment. It is also well known that even the selected candidates do not have any legal right in this behalf.

In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the Petitioner has unsuccessfully participated in the process of the selection without any demur, he is estopped from challenging the selection criteria inter alia on the grounds that the selection committee was bias or it was not properly constituted. Petitioner has made omnibus allegations without their being any documentary evidence.

For the reasons aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in the discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.

However, liberty is given to the Petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority and in case the Petitioner moves such a representation, it is expected that the competent authority will look into the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, expeditiously, say, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order along with the said representation.