Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 125 (JK)

Haseena Akhter v. State Of J. &K.

2009-03-20

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2009
1. Petitioners are aggrieved of the selection and appointment of private respondents 5 to 14 made by respondents on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent no. 4 in terms of advertisement notice No. 4 of 1995 dated 30-3-1995 invited applications from eligible candidates for selection to the posts of General Line Teachers in Education Department. The qualification and eligibility was also given in the advertisement notice and right was reserved by the respondents to call candidates for interview on the basis of qualification, particulars whereof are given in the advertisement notice. The petitioners pursuant to the advertisement notice also applied for their selection and they were accordingly called for interviews along with other candidates including private respondents. Private respondents and other candidates came to be selected, but the petitioners were not selected. Feeling aggrieved by their non-selection, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. 3. After having failed to find their place in the select list, the petitioners have challenged the selection list through the medium of this petition mainly on the ground that the selection committee has failed to judge and assess the suitability of the petitioners and selection of private respondents is bad in law. 4. Respondents have not filed reply. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The question is that once the petitioners participated in the selection process and could not make the grade, can they challenge the selection of the private respondents on the ground that the interview was not fair? 7. The answer is in negative. The apex court in a recent judgement in case titled K.H. Siraj V. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395, held that the candidates who have participated in the selection process, can not challenge the selection process or the mode of conducting interview after they failed to make the grade. It is profitable to reproduce para-73 of the judgment hereunder: - 73. The appellant petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum marks for the interview was not proper" 8. The apex court also in case titled Madan Lal Vs. The appellant petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum marks for the interview was not proper" 8. The apex court also in case titled Madan Lal Vs. State of J&K reported in 1995 (3) SCC 486 held that unfairness of interview process or defective constitution of selection committee cannot be pressed in service by the unsuccessful candidates who had taken a chance to get themselves selected. It is profitable to reproduce para 9 of the said judgment hereunder: "Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage, there is no dispute between the parties. 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 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." 9. Applying the ratio of the above cases to the instant case, the writ petition merits dismissal. 10. In view of the above said facts, the writ petition being without merit is accordingly dismissed along with all connected CMPs. Applying the ratio of the above cases to the instant case, the writ petition merits dismissal. 10. In view of the above said facts, the writ petition being without merit is accordingly dismissed along with all connected CMPs. Interim direction, if any, also stands vacated.