Kiran Toppo vs State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are same and similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.

The petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for a direction upon the respondents to appoint them to the post of Lady

Supervisors as their names figured in the merit list as per oral information given by the Department. The petitioners also pray for a direction upon the

respondent to publish the results of the successful candidates.

The facts of the case lies in narrow compass. The petitioner were appointed in different years as Anganbari Sevikas and since then they were

working on the said post. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year, 2012, an advertisement was floated by the respondent-State for appointment

to the post of Women Supervisors in which 39 posts were advertised and the date of examination was fixed for 26.08.2012. In pursuant to the said

notification, the petitioners having the requisite qualifications, have applied for the same. Thereafter, an admit card was issued to that effect, but no

examination was held in the year, 2012. Subsequently, in the year, 2017, a fresh admit card was issued to only such candidates to whom admit cards

were issued earlier and the date of examination was fixed for 12.03.2017. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they appeared in the said

examination and were fully confident to qualify in the said examination. However, after waiting for a long period, when no results were published, the

petitioners visited on several occasions before the respondent-Department, wherein, it is orally informed that the names of these petitioners are very

much there in merit list but for the reasons best known to the respondents, their candidatures were not considered. Hence, the present writ petition has

been filed by the petitioners for redressal of their grievances.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents have illegally and arbitrary not considered the cases of the

petitioners though they are fully eligible for appointment to the post of Women Supervisors. Learned counsel further argues that the stand of the

respondents is not at all tenable in the eyes of law for withholding the results of the petitioners in view of Resolution dated 26.06.2014. The case of the

petitioners can be considered as they do fulfill the requisite qualifications as on the date, when the advertisement was floated and the said Resolution

of the State was not in existence at the time of publication of advertisement and as such, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the fault

on the part of the respondents as in conducting the examination in the year, 2017 in place of 2012. Learned counsel further argues that Resolution of

the State cannot be given retrospective effect and can be made effective when it came into existence i.e. in the year, 2014. Learned counsel placed

heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Maharashtra State Road Construction & Ors. Vrs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve

& Ors., reported in  2002 (1) JCR 301, wherein it has been held that, “…………. rules of the games meaning thereby, that the criteria for

selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced.â€​.Â

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners and submits that rules of the game have not been changed. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that which terms and

conditions of the advertisement are changed. The terms and conditions of the advertisements remained as it is and as it was when the advertisement

was floated in the year 2012. It was only due to some unavoidable circumstances, the examinations were held in the year, 2017 and the petitioners

cannot take advantage of delay. It has been further argued that in the Resolution itself it is mentioned that any certificate issued prior to 26.06.2014

and after 26.06.2014 issued by the Deoghar Hindi Vidhya Peeth shall not be given any effect to in case of employment and promotion, so the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that said Resolution of State cannot be given retrospective effect is also not tenable in the eyes of

law.Â

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of records, this Court is of the considered opinion that no

case is made out for interference in the writ petition. There is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondents for non-consideration of the cases

of the petitioners. It is the policy decision of the State Government to hold the examination as and when it is convenient to the State. Admittedly, it is

not a case of the petitioners that they have claimed age relaxation due to delay in examinations. Once terms and conditions of the advertisement have

been accepted by the petitioners, it cannot be challenged after appearing in the examination/results have been declared, which is not permitted in the

eyes of law. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not at all accepted by this Court.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow & Ors., reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585, has held that the

candidate who participated in the selection process cannot challenge the validity of the said selection process after appearing in the said selection

process and taking opportunity of being selected. Para-15 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-

“15. … He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having

done so, it is now not open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee.â€​

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules and guidelines, I find no merit in the instant case.

Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and his hereby dismissed.