Sunil Arora vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the advertisement issued by the respondent-authorities for selection and appointment on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II provides essential qualification as Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination 10 + 2/12th Class in Science subject. Even the rules prescribe the qualification for the said post, i.e., 10 + 2/12th pass in Biology, Chemistry and Physics.

It is indisputable that the petitioner participated in the selection process and when his name did not find place in the list of successful candidates, the petitioner filed the instant petition on the ground that some of the successful candidates did not possess the above-stated qualification, as they obtained 10 + 2/12th pass certificate in Mathematics and some of the successful candidates are having higher qualification and, as such, they could not have been considered in preference to other candidates, who are having the requisite basic qualification in the concerned subject.

It is well settled by a catena of decisions that classification on the basis of higher educational qualification to achieve higher administrative efficiency is permissible under our constitutional scheme. [See: Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P. Dilip Kumar and Another,

If the advertisement was contrary to the rules, the petitioner ought to have questioned the same before participating in the selection process, not after having accepted the contents of the advertisement. Eligibility qualification does nor appear to be contrary.

It is the well settled law that a candidate who has appeared in the selection process without demur cannot question the selection process after having failed in the selection, [See: Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Others, , G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow and Others, , P.S. Gopinathan Vs. State of Kerala and Others, , Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others, and K.H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others,

For the foregoing reasons, there is no illegality, or infirmity in the selection process, particularly on the grounds raised by the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.