Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 685 (GAU)

Sarjina Begum & 2 Ors. v. State of Assam & 4 Ors.

2016-07-26

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
1. Heard Mr. D.K. Bagchi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. JMA Choudhury, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. M. Khataniar, learned counsel represents respondent No. 3 whereas Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel represents respondent Nos. 5(a) to (n). The determination of this case lies in a narrow compass as the primary issue had been answered by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. 2. Short facts are that an Advertisement was issued on 07.03.2015 for appointment to the post of ASHA Supervisor on contractual basis under the National Health Mission. The petitioners along with others responded to the Advertisement and also appeared in the selection process. The petitioners were not successful in the selection process. The Select List as published by Notification dated 27.05.2015 is now put to challenge primarily on the ground that the selection process was held by a Board contrary to the Guidelines dated 07.05.2015 which lays down the procedure for interview and selection and that of the Office Order dated 18.05.2015 specifying the members constituting the Selection Boards. 3. Mr. JMA Choudhury submits that in so far as the Office Order dated 18.05.2016 is concerned, the same relates to Boards constituted only for conducting interview and not the Board to conduct the entire selection process. According to Mr. Choudhruy the Guidelines dated 07.05.2015 clearly lays down the constitution of the Selection Committee for holding the selection process. 4. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel representing the Private Respondents submits that in view of the decisions of the Apex Court, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, they having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee. Mr. Gogoi also relies upon the judgment in Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 . 5. I have considered the rival submissions and proceed to decide this case on the limited premises. There is no dispute to the fact that pursuant to the Advertisement dated 07.03.2015, the petitioners had not only applied for the post of ASHA Supervisor but also participated in the selection process. It is well settled in law that a person having participated in the selection process is estopped from challenging the process. There is no dispute to the fact that pursuant to the Advertisement dated 07.03.2015, the petitioners had not only applied for the post of ASHA Supervisor but also participated in the selection process. It is well settled in law that a person having participated in the selection process is estopped from challenging the process. In Madan Lal (supra) the Apex Court have held that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview and only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him/her, he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process was unfair or there was a defect in the constitution of the Selection Committee. The ratio of the judgment in Madan Lal (supra) is clearly applicable in the instant case. The petitioners having participated in the selection process and/or having submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee, cannot now be allowed to turn around and say that the process was unfair or there was any defect in the Selection Committee. 6. For all the reasons above, this writ petition does not merit consideration and stands accordingly dismissed. No costs.