Virpal Kaur vs State of Punjab

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned advertisement (Annexure P-9).

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the selection process carried out pursuant to the impugned advertisement, was illegal insofar as granting of 10 extra marks in favour of six candidates including the private respondents, who had passed their B.Ed examination long ago. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that impugned advertisement was contrary to the statutory rules. He prays for setting aside impugned advertisement, by allowing the present writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the advertisement was issued containing specific terms and conditions.

Petitioners were fully aware about the selection process. They participated but having failed to make the bench mark, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the same very selection. She prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, the instant writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed for the following more than one reasons, which are being recorded hereinafter.

It is undisputed on record that pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P-9), the petitioners applied. It is neither pleaded nor argued case on behalf of the petitioners that they were not aware about the terms and conditions of the advertisement as well as the selection process. It is also not claimed by the petitioners that there was any scope of misrepresentation on the basis of which they might have misunderstood the advertisement. In such a situation, once the petitioners have taken a chance, participated in the selection process but failed to make a bench mark, they cannot be permitted to turn around and find fault with the same selection process.

Similar issue fell for consideration before Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, which is being consistently followed. The relevant observations made by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others Vs. Anil Joshi and Others, which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:

In Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, a three-Judge bench ruled that when the petitioner appeared in the examination without protest, he was not entitled to challenge the result of the examination. The same view was reiterated in Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, in the following words:

The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. 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 the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.

Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand and following the law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court, it is unhesitatingly held that once the petitioners have participated in the selection process without any protest and failed to get selected, they were estopped from challenging the same very selection process by way of present writ petition.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

Resultantly, instant writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.