1. The facts giving rise to the writ petition on hand may be briefly stated. One post of Professor in the University of Kashmir, in the discipline of Zoology, fell vacant due to superannuation of Professor M. Z. Chesti. Consequently, an adver tisement notice was issued on 22nd of January, 2009 by the University, inviting applications for filling up of several posts, including the post in question. On 7th ol April, 2009, the respondent-University issued an addendum to the advertisement notice aforementioned, whereby eligibility criterion of possession of specialization in Parasitology was also included as one of the area of specialization for the post of Professor in question. It is contended that the Respondent-University issued inter view slips to the eligible candidates and the interview was held on 23.12.2010. Respondent No. 5, being the Head of the Department of the Zoology, was one of the members of the Selection Committee. After conclusion of the intewiews, selec tion was taken to its logical end, and respondent No. 6 came to be selected and appointed against the said post. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner through this petition has questioned the selection/appointment of respondent No. 6. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 has been actuated by fraud, because husband of respondent No. 6, being the Head of the Department, paved way for her selection in question and the consequent appointment, that too, at the cost of the petitioner. Petitioner has pleaded in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition how he got affected by the inaction of the respondents and how prejudice has been caused to him. 3. Respondents have filed detailed reply refuting the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 4. Respondents 5 & 6 have also filed their respective replies and have denied the averments made in the writ petition. They have specifically refuted the plea of the petitioner of any prejudice having been caused to him. Respondent No. 5 has specifically pleaded that when the interview of respondent No. 6 was conducted, he completely disassociated himself from the Selection Committee and did not participate in the interview of respondent No. 6, and the Selection Committee has judged the candidates on their respective merit. 5.
Respondent No. 5 has specifically pleaded that when the interview of respondent No. 6 was conducted, he completely disassociated himself from the Selection Committee and did not participate in the interview of respondent No. 6, and the Selection Committee has judged the candidates on their respective merit. 5. To deal with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 6 and 7 of the reply filed by respondent No. 6, which read thus: "6. In reply to para 6, I state and submit that the writ petitioner also voluntarily appeared before the Selection Committee and was interviewed. I state that when the answering respondent was called by the Selection Committee for interview, Head of the Department, Prof. Ghulam Mustafa Shah, deponent's husband did not participate in the process nor he inter viewed the deponent. The answering respondent was exclusively inter viewed by the other members of the Selection Committee. The answering respondent answered all the questions correctly. The Experts were im pressed by the answering respondent's publications, performance, experi ence, teaching experience and the length of service. The writ petitioner voluntarily participated in the 'selection process' and did not object to the composition of the 'Selection Committee' and or to the 'selection process.'. The writ petitioner is, therefore, estopped in law from challenging the selection of the answering respondent. The answering respondent is advised state that Section 36 of the Act, governing the field, provides statutory composition of the 'Selection Committee'. At the time of hearing attention of the Hon'ble Court will be invited to the provisions of law having bearing on the matter. 7. In reply to para 7, I state and submit that the 'Departmental Committee' had recommended to the University Authorities specializations to be in corporated in the Advertisement Notice having regard to the requirements of the Department. The 'Selection Committee' was to be constituted in accordance with the statutory requirements. Before the date of interview, respondent No. 5 informed the Vice Chancellor as regards his relationship with the deponent herein. The answering respondent was not interviewed by the respondent No. 5." 6. Respondent No. 5 has also filed the reply and has denied the averments made in the writ petition. It is apt to reproduce the paragraph (6) of the reply, which reads as under: "6.
The answering respondent was not interviewed by the respondent No. 5." 6. Respondent No. 5 has also filed the reply and has denied the averments made in the writ petition. It is apt to reproduce the paragraph (6) of the reply, which reads as under: "6. In reply to para 6, I state and submit that on his own admission, the petitioner states that he came to know about the composition of the Selec tion Committee on 14.12.2010. The Committee interviewed the writ petition and other candidates on 23.12.2010. It is submitted that the writ petitioner did not object to the composition of the Selection Committee of which he had acquired knowledge on 14.12.2010. The effect of voluntarily participation in selection process ineluding interview is that the writ petitioner cannot challenge the selection made by the Selection Committee on the basis of bias or likelihood of bias. The writ petitioner after having taken the chance of selection and not having been recommended for appointment by the Committee cannot turn round and question the selection process of the composition of selection Committee. This is not permissible in law." 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the averments made in the writ petition as also in the replies filed by the respective respondents. 8. Mr. Bhat, learned appearing counsel for the petitioner, while addressing the arguments, submitted that the selection of respondent No. 6 has come into being by fraud, as respondent No. 5, being Head of the Department of Zoology and husband of respondent No. 6, paved way for her selection in question. He has also stated that husband of respondent No. 6, being the member of the Selection Committee, conducted the interview and made a way for selection of respondent No. 6. 9. Mr. Kawoosa, learned appearing counsel for the official respondents, sub mitted that the petitioner appeared in the interview, waited for the selection, and thus participated in the entire selection process. After having failed to make the grade, he has made a U-turn and challenged the selection of respondent No. 6 on the ground that respondent No. 5, being the Head of the Department of Zoology, ought not to have been a member of the Selection Committee. It is submitted that petitioner cannot be allowed to raise such an objection after he has participated in the entire selection process.
It is submitted that petitioner cannot be allowed to raise such an objection after he has participated in the entire selection process. Learned counsel for the respondents have also argued that after the petitioner failed to make the grade, he challenged the process of selection on the ground that respondent No. 5 has influenced the selection process and, thus, the selection is an outcome of fraud, favoritism and mala fide. It is submitted that the petitioner, under law, is estopped to challenge the selection process after having participated therein without any demur. It is further argued that respondent No. 5 was not present at the time interview of respondent No. 6 was conducted, thus, the selection of respondent is not affected in any way. It is also argued that the selection has been made in terms of the selection process initiated by the University of Kashmir who have considered the whole gamut of the case and have made the selection in question. 10. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Apex Court in (1984) 2 SCC 631 : 2010 (6) JKJ SC-201, Javid Rasool Bhat v. State of J&K (1985) 4 SCC 417 , Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana; AIR 1995 SC 1088 :2010 (5) JKJ SC-819, Madan Lal v. State of J&K and (2008) 4 SCC 171 , Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, has held that when a candidate participates in a selection process without any demur and fails to make the grade, cannot question the selection on any ground, whatsoever. The Apex Court has also held that if one of the members of the Selection Committee is the relation of any candidate and he has not participated in the interview process, no prejudice can be alleged. When the petitioner knew that husband of respondent No. 6, being the Head of the Department of Zoology, was a member of the Selection Committee, he did not raise his finger against the selection process from the date of commencement of selection process until it was finalized. Therefore, the petitioner is precluded from questioning the selection process at a belated stage after the results of the interview are made public. 11. In the aforementioned backdrop, what emerges is that petitioner has not made any ground to question the selection of respondent No. 6 and has failed to make a case for admission. Accordingly, writ petition merits dismissal.
Therefore, the petitioner is precluded from questioning the selection process at a belated stage after the results of the interview are made public. 11. In the aforementioned backdrop, what emerges is that petitioner has not made any ground to question the selection of respondent No. 6 and has failed to make a case for admission. Accordingly, writ petition merits dismissal. I do so accordingly. Writ petition is dismissed along with CMPs. Interim direction shall stand vacated.