Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 594 (HP)

SATISH KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-06-19

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.-The respondent No. 3 had issued an advertisement which appeared in the daily edition of ‘Punjab Kesari’, whereby applications were invited for filling up two posts of Craft Instructor (Instrument Mechanic) from the eligible candidates. The petitioner submitted his application for the post of Craft Instructor. The interviews were held on 18th May, 2001 by the respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 was selected to the post of Craft Instructor. The petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Craft Instructor. 2. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client was more meritorious vis-à-vis respondent No. 4. He then contended that the respondent-Board was required to hold screening test/written test. He further contended that the post in question could not be filled up only on the basis of oral interview. He lastly contended that the experience certificate obtained by the respondent No. 4, was from non-existing company. 3. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. D.K. Khanna have supported the selection of respondent No. 4 to the post of Craft Instructor. Mr. D.K. Khanna has also argued that once the petitioner had appeared in the interview, he is estopped from challenging the selection process. 4. I have heard the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The advertisement was issued vide Annexure A-12. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were interviewed by the Selection Committee comprising of one departmental nominee, an expert of the subject, Member and Chairman of the respondent-Board. Respondent No. 4 was found more meritorious. His name was recommended to the post of Craft Instructor. He joined his duties as submitted by Mr. D.K. Khanna. Respondent No. 4 has done training as Mechanical Instrument w.e.f. August, 1982 to July, 1983. He also underwent a course of training as Craft Instructor w.e.f. 1st August, 1985 to 31st July, 1986 from National Council for Training in Vocational Trades, Ministry of Labour Employment and Rehabilitation. He had worked in Swadeshi Polytex Limited from 5.3.1984 to 4.3.1985. He also worked in Syson Engineers Pvt. Ltd. From 5.10.1987 to 21.1.1992. Thereafter, he worked in Permenta Biotech Ltd. From 31.1.1992 to 14.5.2001. The Selection Committee after taking into consideration the knowledge of the subject, general knowledge and awareness of the duties of Craft Instructor (Instrument Mechanic), had recommended the name of respondent No. 4. The contention raised by Mr. He also worked in Syson Engineers Pvt. Ltd. From 5.10.1987 to 21.1.1992. Thereafter, he worked in Permenta Biotech Ltd. From 31.1.1992 to 14.5.2001. The Selection Committee after taking into consideration the knowledge of the subject, general knowledge and awareness of the duties of Craft Instructor (Instrument Mechanic), had recommended the name of respondent No. 4. The contention raised by Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the experience certificates have been issued to respondent No. 4 by the non-existing companies. He has not placed any tangible material to substantiate this submission. 6. The petitioner had appeared in the interview on 18th May, 2001. Once he had appeared in the interview, he cannot assail the selection process. He is estopped from challenging the selection process. He has not been found suitable by the Selection Committee. 7. The Apex Court in Om Prakash Shukla versus Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043 has held that when a candidate appeared at the examination without protest, he cannot be permitted to assail the same by filing a petition. Similarly, Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal and others versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1088 have held that the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. Their Lordships have held as under: “9. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to re-assess the relative merit of the concerned candidates who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a Court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee.” 8. There is no illegality in the action of the respondent No. 3 to fill up the post on the basis of oral interview. 9. Moreover, it is for the Selection Committee to adjudge the suitability of the candidates for a particular post. The petitioner has not alleged any infraction of rules while constituting the Selection Committee nor has levelled any malafides against the members of the Committee. The petitioner has not even placed on record the copy of the appointment letter of the respondent No. 4 for the post of Craft Instructor. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations made above, there is no force in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. No costs.