Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1757 (JHR)

Easter Rani Bhengra v. State of Jharkhand

2018-08-07

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider her appointment for the post of Aganbari Sevika in village Idri pursuant to the order dated 08.12.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5702 of 2005. Further prayer has been made for cancellation of appointment of respondent No.5 and for direction upon the respondents to provide the benefits of appointment as per merit and guidelines. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in narrow compass. The petitioner is a matriculate and belongs to Scheduled Tribes. An aamsabha was conducted on 20.12.2001 for appointment to the post of Aaganbari Sevika, the petitioner was one of the candidate for the said post with Smt. Sarita Devi, but she was not selected and said Smt. Sarita Devi was selected for the said post. Aggrieved by the selection of said Smt. Sarita Devi, the petitioner moved before this Hon'ble Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 1685 of 2005, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 12.04.2005. In compliance of the said order, the respondents authorities cancelled the appointment of Sarita Devi. Pursuant thereto, Sarita Devi also moved before this Hon'ble Court by filing writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 5702 of 2015, wherein the present petitioner was respondent No. 9 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 08.12.2014 with a direction to respondent No.2 to pass speaking and reasoned order. 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that in compliance of the said order, the respondent No.3 directed the petitioner and Sarita Devi to appear on 28.04.2015 and 12.05.2015 for hearing. Thereafter, the present petitioner appeared before the respondents on both the occasions with all relevant documents and testimonials and pleaded her case. After sufficient lapse of time, when no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner invoked provisions of RTI Act from where he could gathered the information that her candidature was not considered and respondent No. 4 has been selected in a matter which was between petitioner and Sarita Devi. The aforesaid selection is illegal as other person has been appointed, who was not a party in the earlier proceeding. The aforesaid selection is illegal as other person has been appointed, who was not a party in the earlier proceeding. As the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents, she has rushed before this Court, by way of filing instant writ petition. 4. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have illegally and arbitrary not considered the cases of the petitioner though she is fully eligible for appointment to the post of Aaganbari Sevika. The respondent No. 4, who has been selected was not even a party in the earlier proceeding, which is not permissible in the eyes of law, therefore, her candidature may be cancelled. The selection process for Aaganbari Sevika was initiated in the year 2001 itself and on the same issue, orders have been passed by this Hon'ble Court to pass a speaking and reasoned order, but respondents have flouted the orders of the Hon'ble Court in not recommending the name of the petitioner even after calling her to appear before the Deputy Commissioner. 5. No counter-affidavit has been filed. However, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that it is settled principles of law that recruitment process cannot be challenged after appearing in the examination and when results have been declared, which is not permitted in the eyes of law. There is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondents for non-consideration of the cases of the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. The petitioner appeared in the selection process and after appearing in the selection process when she was not selected, she has approached this Court, challenging the appointment of respondent No.5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow & Ors., reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585 , has held that the candidate who participated in the selection process cannot challenge the validity of the said selection process after appearing in the said selection process and taking opportunity of being selected. Para-15 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below :- “15. … He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Para-15 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below :- “15. … He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is now not open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee.” 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules and guidelines, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition. There is no merit in the instant case. 8. Resultantly, this writ petition stands dismissed.