Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 389 (GAU)

Mazibur Rahman v. State Of Assam

2020-03-13

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2020
JUDGMENT Songkhupchung Serto, J. - Heard Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Doley, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. On 04/10/2013 an advertisement inviting applications from eligible and intending candidates for filling up 4 posts of Inspector of Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (SPCA) was published by the respondent No.2 in "Assam Tribune" a widely circulated daily newspaper. The petitioner applied for the post but since he was over age he requested for relaxation of the upper age limit and the same was duly allowed. Accordingly, he was issued a call letter dated 21/11/2014 to appear for oral interview on 29/11/2014. The petitioner appeared before the interview Board on the date mentioned in the call letter but when the result was declared he was not selected for the post. Being aggrieved he is before this Court challenging the whole selection process and praying for quashing and setting aside of the result of the interview held on 29/11/2014. 3. The case of the petitioner as submitted by his learned counsel is that; wxyz (i) the respondents by publishing the advertisement in a newspaper but not notifying through employment exchange violated the direction given by the Commissioner & Secretary, Labour & Employment Department, Government of Assam vide his letter No.GLR(RC)17/2013/13 dated 09/04/2013 to strictly comply/implement the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 in the interest of unemployed youths of Assam. Therefore, the interview held in pursuance of the advertisement is liable to be quashed and set aside. zyxw wxyz (ii) the post of Inspector being equivalent to the post of Junior Assistant, it is necessary that written test should also have been conducted before the oral interview was conducted. But since it was not done, the mandatory Rules for selection of Grade-III post was violated. Therefore, the interview held was invalid and it cannot be the basis for filling up the post of Inspector. zyxw wxyz (iii) the Selection Committee constituted for the post of Inspector was in violation of Rule-5 (1) (a) of the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class-III and Class-IV Posts) Rules 1997 and it was done by the Director in order to suit his desire to appoint people of his choice. Therefore, the selection made by the Committee is liable to be quash and set aside. Therefore, the selection made by the Committee is liable to be quash and set aside. zyxw wxyz (v) the petitioner having been engaged by the respondents for a long time, should have been given preference over the other candidates. zyxw 4. Besides what has been stated above the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted also that though there is no service rule for the post of Inspector, service rules of other services which are similar and of the same grade should have been followed and written test should have been conducted before the viva voce. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of this High Court passed in the case of Abu Taba (Dr.) and Ors -versus- State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors, (2002) 3 GauLT 313 , paragraphs-23 to 29. The contents of the paragraphs are reproduced here below; wxyz ''23. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 12, 13, 25 and 26, who are applicants for the post of Junior Dental Surgeon, it has been submitted that since even the Services rules of 2000 provide making of recruitment on the basis of the written examination to be followed by interview or on the basis of interview alone, the commission, in effect, acted, within the ambit of Service Rules of 2000, by choosing to make selection on the basis of interview alone. In this regard, suffice it mention that I have already held that since the petitioners have participated in the selection process, they cannot, now turn around and challenge legality of the selection process, but in view of the fact that the entire selection process, as held above, is marked by strong possibility bias, the selection made on the basis of such a process cannot be allowed to stand good on record. zyxw wxyz (24). I may pause hereto point out that it Praveen Singh (supra), the Apex Court has disapproved the choice of making recruitments on the basis of interview alone, because the scope for manipulations giving the tactics of manipulations as fa ade of interview is not impossible. zyxw wxyz (24). I may pause hereto point out that it Praveen Singh (supra), the Apex Court has disapproved the choice of making recruitments on the basis of interview alone, because the scope for manipulations giving the tactics of manipulations as fa ade of interview is not impossible. I am guided to adopt this view from the law laid down in Praveen Singh (supra) in the following words:- zyxw wxyz "while it is true that the administrative or quasi judicial authority clothed with the power of selection and appointment ought to be left unfettered in adaptation of procedural aspect but that does not however mean and imply that : the same would be made available to an employer at the cost of fair play, good conscience and equity. This Court in the case: of J.P. Kulashrestha Vs Chancellor Allahabad University, (1980) AIR SC 2141 : (1980 Lab 1c 692: 1980 All LJ 571) did recognize the undetectable manipulation of results being achieved by remote control tacits and masked as viva voce test resulting (in) the sabotaging of the purity of proceedings. This Court held "interviews as such are not bad but polluting it to attain illegitimate ends is bad." What does Kulashrestha''s case (supra) depict? Does it say that interview should be only method of assessment of the merits of the candidates? The answer obviously cannot be in the affirmative. The vice of manipulation we are afraid cannot be ruled out. Though interview undoubtedly a significant factor in the matter of appointments. It plays a strategic role but it also allows creeping in of a lacuna rendering the appointments illegitimate. Obviously, it is an important factor but out not to be the sole guiding factor since reliance thereon only may lead to a " sabotage of purity of proceedings." zyxw wxyz (25) It needs to be borne in mind that when the service Rules of 2000 provide the commission with the option of making recruitment of Dental Surgeons on the basis of either written examination, to be followed by interview alone, the Commission has to satisfy the Court, if the fairness of the selection process is challenged, as to way it chose to make recruitment on the basis of interview only and did not resort to holding of written examination to be followed by viva voce test/interview. The affidavit filed by the Commission is, as already indicated above, completely silent in this regard. zyxw wxyz 26. Coupled with the above it is of immense importance to note that though it is true that the requisition for making recruitment was sent by the said department to the Commission initially on 2.7.2001 and then, repeated on 1.8.2001, yet the fact remains that the Service Rules of 2000 came into force barely two days thereafter i.e. on 3.8.2001. It is difficult to believe that the Department concerned, on publication of Gazette notification on 3.8.2001, did not come to know that the new recruitment rules have already come into force and the selection, if any, should be made on the basis of new recruitment rules. In fact, the State respondents do not deny their knowledge of the changes that had taken place. This becomes crystal clear from the fact that in the affidavit, the State respondents have contended to the effect that since syllabus for written examination was yet to be finalized and posting of doctors at primary Health centers was necessary, the selection was made on the basis of the Rules of 1990. However, no material has been placed before this Court to show that any serious study was done either by the Department concerned or by the commission to ascertain if in view of the changes in the relevant recruitment rules, written examination should be held before calling candidates (meant for post of Dental Surgeons) for viva voce or interview. Far from this, this Commission has expressed its complete ignorance by asserting that it did not know that the recruitment rules stood changed. If the syllabus for any written examination to be conducted by a Public Service commission, is to be prepared, it has to be really prepared by the Commission, because it is the commission, which knows what it needs to test in a candidates to determine his/her suitability for the post for which the recruitment has to take place. zyxw wxyz 27. In the face of the fact that the commission nowhere claims that it made any effort to finalise the syllabus for written examination, one cannot readily believe the assertions of the State respondents that as finalization of syllabus would have taken time, recruitment was held under the service Rules of 1990. zyxw wxyz 27. In the face of the fact that the commission nowhere claims that it made any effort to finalise the syllabus for written examination, one cannot readily believe the assertions of the State respondents that as finalization of syllabus would have taken time, recruitment was held under the service Rules of 1990. I am not questioning here the legality of making of recruitment on the basis of Service Rules of 1990, but testing whether the holding of selection process under Service Rule of 1990 was aimed at making recruitment hastily of some persons already chosen for the post advertised. Viewed from this angle, not holding of written examination and making of selection based entirely on interview, fairness of which is vigorously shaken, one has no option, but to hold that the selection made smacks of bias and favoritism. zyxw wxyz (28) In short, attempting to make selection on the basis of interview alone coupled with the fact that the entire selection process is found to smack of bias, the recruitment made, with the help of such process, cannot but be interfered with court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. zyxw wxyz (29) In the result, and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition succeeds. The entire selection process as well as selection of the private respondents namely, respondent Nos. 6 to 28 and the appointments, if any, already made, in consequence of such selection, shall stand set aside and quashed as a whole. No order as to costs." zyxw 5. The learned counsel also submitted that though the petitioner participated in the selection process that would not bar him from challenging the same since he came to know about the irregularities in the selection process only after having participated in the same. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to the judgment passed by this High Court in the case of Assam Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Service Association and Ors versus- State of Assam & Others, (1999) 2 GauLT 121 . In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to the judgment passed by this High Court in the case of Assam Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Service Association and Ors versus- State of Assam & Others, (1999) 2 GauLT 121 . The relevant paragraphs are paragraph-27 and 28 and they are reproduced are here below; wxyz "(27) We feel in a case e.g. where the constitution of the Selection Board may be challenged to be defective, which fact was within the knowledge of a candidate before he took the chance and appeared before the selection Board, it would be appropriate case where he may be estopped from challenging constitution and proceedings of the Selection board on that ground. But, where infirmities or irregularities come to the knowledge of the candidate or could come to the knowledge of a candidate only during the course of the selection proceedings itself, it cannot be said that such proceedings cannot be challenged merely because the candidate submitted to the selection. It is not that when the interview was in progress and irregularities was noticed the candidate may quit or withdraws from the interview. Normally, he would be there till interview is completed. Such a situation would not bar him to challenge the selection proceedings. zyxw wxyz (28) In the instant case, however, precisely what is objected to on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner had participated in the interview and according to their own allegations they became aware of the alleged irregularities during the course of the selection proceedings itself. Therefore, immediately after the selection was over, it would have been proper that the petitioners had challenged the proceedings, rather to wait till result was declared and the petitioners came to know that they remained unsuccessful. It is not to be taken mechanically that since the petitioners participated in the interview that they may not be heard complaining about the same. But what is objectionable is that they were keeping quiet after the alleged irregularities came to their knowledge till the result was out. Respondents would not be unjustified in pointing out that this period of waiting, for result to be declared, was only for the purpose of taking a chance and on being declared unsuccessful they turned round to challenge the proceedings in respect of which they did not raise objection before the result was declared. Respondents would not be unjustified in pointing out that this period of waiting, for result to be declared, was only for the purpose of taking a chance and on being declared unsuccessful they turned round to challenge the proceedings in respect of which they did not raise objection before the result was declared. In the case of Rajkumar (supra) relied upon by the appellant, the hon''ble Supreme Court did not deviate from what has been laid down in Madanlal (supra), but in view of the facts under consideration and application of wrong rules, it was found to be a glaring mistake on the part of the State hence: the Court interfered in the matter. We are of the view that the petitioner was entitled to challenge the proceedings of the selection pointing out the alleged irregularities, but within a reasonable time of the irregularities coming out the alleged irregularities, but within a reasonable time of the irregularities coming to their knowledge, namely, after their interview was over. But their conduct in springing up into action only after the result was declared, which was not favourable to them raises doubt about their bonafides and it may amended to acquiescence to the selection process in which they took part and waited to challenge it till the result was declared." zyxw 6. Mr. D. Doley, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner has participated in the selection process after fully knowing about the process to be followed, he cannot now turn around and challenge the same. The learned Government Advocate, in support of his submission referred to paragraph-17 to 19 of the judgment passed in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus- Surender Singh and Others, (2019) 8 SCC 67 . The contents of the paragraphs referred to are reproduced below; wxyz "17. The position noticed above would indicate that the entire grievance with which the petitioners had approached the High Court was on claiming to be aggrieved by Clauses 25 and 26 contained in the Advertisement No.1/2006 issued for recruitment of Assistant Teacher (Primary) for the benefit of the appellant MCD. In order to appreciate the same in its correct perspective, it would be appropriate to take note of the impugned Clauses 25 and 26 which read as hereunder: zyxw wxyz "25. In order to appreciate the same in its correct perspective, it would be appropriate to take note of the impugned Clauses 25 and 26 which read as hereunder: zyxw wxyz "25. The Board has full discretion to fix minimum qualifying marks for selection for each category i.e. SC/ST etc. of post in order to achieve qualitative selection and to pick up the best talent available. zyxw wxyz 26. The marks obtained by the candidate in written examination will not be disclosed in any case." zyxw wxyz 18. From a perusal of the said Clause it is noticed that though under the very Clause there is no cutoff marks specified, Clause 25 would, however, provide the full discretion to the DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks for selection. In the instant case, keeping in view that the recruitment was for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and also taking note of the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier petition requiring the maintenance of minimum standards, DSSSB while preparing the select list had stopped the selection at a point which was indicated as the cutoff percentage. In a circumstance where Clause 25 was depicted in the Advertisement No.1/2006, when the private respondents herein and the other petitioners before the High Court were responding to the said Advertisement, if at all they had a grievance that the Clause is arbitrary and might affect their right ultimately since no minimum marks that is to be obtained has been indicated therein, they were required to assail the same at that stage. On the other hand, despite being aware of the Clause providing discretion to DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks, they have participated in the selection process by appearing for the qualifying examination without raising any protest. In that circumstance, the principle of approbate and reprobate would apply and the private respondents herein or any other candidate who participated in the process cannot be heard to complain in that regard. zyxw wxyz 19. It is no doubt true that the select list was concluded at the particular cutoff point wherein the last selected candidate under the unreserved category had obtained 89.25%. The said decision had been taken by the DSSSB to ensure the minimum standard of the teachers that would be recruited and the appellant herein being the recruiting agency in any event, did not have objection. The said decision had been taken by the DSSSB to ensure the minimum standard of the teachers that would be recruited and the appellant herein being the recruiting agency in any event, did not have objection. In any event, it is not the case of the petitioners that they had obtained higher marks than the candidate who was shown as the last candidate in the merit list. If that was the position and when it is noticed that the appellant and the other writ petitioners had secured lesser percentage of marks than the last candidate included in the merit list, there could not have been any further consideration whatsoever in the course of judicial review. To that extent, the learned Single Judge, from the observations as noticed above has kept in view all aspects of the matter and in that light had arrived at the conclusion that no error was committed either by the DSSSB or the appellant herein." zyxw wxyz In addition to the above, the learned Government Advocate also referred to the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court passed in the case of D. Sarojakumari -versus- R. Helen Thilakom and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 478 . The contents of paragraphs4 to 8, 11 & 12 particularly referred to by the learned Government Advocate are reproduced here below; zyxw wxyz "4. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that Respondent 1 having taken part in the selection process could not be permitted to challenge the same after she was unsuccessful in getting selected. The law is well settled that once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is estopped from challenging the process of selection. zyxw wxyz 5. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., the petitioner after appearing in the interview for the post of Professor and having not been selected pleaded that the experts were biased. zyxw wxyz 5. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., the petitioner after appearing in the interview for the post of Professor and having not been selected pleaded that the experts were biased. This Court did not permit the petitioner to raise this issue and held as follows :- zyxw wxyz "15.We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. 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 not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee." zyxw wxyz 6. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K , the petitioner laid challenge to the manner and method of conducting viva-voce test after they had appeared in the same and were unsuccessful. This Court held as follows :- zyxw wxyz "9......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." zyxw wxyz 7. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, this Court held as follows: (SCC p.584, para-16) zyxw wxyz "16......Surely, if the petitioner''s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition." zyxw wxyz 8. In Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi the petitioners took part in the process of selection made under the general rules. Having appeared in the interview and not being successful they challenged the method of recruitment itself. They were not permitted to raise such an objection. This Court held as follows; (SCC p.32, para-24) zyxw wxyz "24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents." zyxw wxyz 11. As far as the present case is concerned, an advertisement was issued by Respondent inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised. zyxw wxyz 12. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside order dated 25.07.2003 of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition OP No.36563 of 2002 as being not maintainable." zyxw 7. Mr. In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised. zyxw wxyz 12. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside order dated 25.07.2003 of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition OP No.36563 of 2002 as being not maintainable." zyxw 7. Mr. D. Doley also submitted that as per the eligibility criteria given in the advertisement for the post of Inspector, a candidate was required to have undergone a training at Animal Welfare Board of India (A.W.B.I), Chennai. But the petitioner did not fulfill this criteria, therefore, his candidature was void-ab-initio but was allowed to appear by mistake. Therefore, the petitioner has no right whatsoever to challenge the selection process. 8. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the post of Inspector is a technical one and the technical knowledge of a candidate can very well be assessed with oral interview, therefore, there was no need of conducting written test. The learned counsel went further and submitted that there is no recruitment rules governing recruitment process to the post of Inspector, therefore, nothing wrong was committed in the selection process. Lastly, the learned Government Advocate submitted that there was no element of biasness in the selection process and it was fairly conducted, as such, there is no reason for interfering with the same. 9. Now coming to the first ground on which the petitioner based his case, the advertisement was sent to the Director of Information and Public Relation by the Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary department for publication in 4(four) leading dailies of the State, one in Assamese, one in Bengali, one in English and one more in English in hill areas vide his letter No. AS-5/7(Vacancy)/Pt/2013/7095, dated 01/10/2013 and the copy of the same was endorsed to the Director, Employment and Craftsman Training for information. From this it can safely be concluded that the advertisement was widely published and the Director of employment exchange also did the needful. The fact that nobody but except the petitioner has raised this issue shows that the advertisement was widely published and nobody really had any grievance regarding the same. Further, the fact that the petitioner and the persons selected came to know about it and applied for the same also supports the conclusion that the advertisement was widely published. The fact that nobody but except the petitioner has raised this issue shows that the advertisement was widely published and nobody really had any grievance regarding the same. Further, the fact that the petitioner and the persons selected came to know about it and applied for the same also supports the conclusion that the advertisement was widely published. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the first ground in the writ petition does not hold much water. Moreover, since the petitioner appeared in the examination based on the advertisement he cannot now turn around and claim that the advertisement was in violation of any law, rule or direction. 10. On the second ground taken by the petitioner, that is, the post of Inspector being equivalent to junior Assistant it is necessary that written examination should have preceded the oral interview or selection process for Inspector should not have been only through oral interview but should have included written test, I have considered the submissions of both the learned counsels who represented the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the pay scale of Junior Assistant and Inspector are same, therefore, both the post belongs to the same category or grade. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the two posts are of different grade pays therefore, they can never be equated with each other. The learned counsel referred to para-13 of the affidavit-inopposition filed by the respondents wherein the pay of the Junior Assistant and the pay of the Inspector are given as follows; wxyz (i) Pay band of Junior Assistant is Rs. 5,200 - Rs. 20500 + Grade Pay of Rs. 2200/- , (ii) Pay band of Inspector is Rs. 5200 Rs. 20500 + Grade pay of Rs. 3300/-. After referring to the above, the learned counsel had submitted that pay band alone is not the only determining factor for grade or category of a post/service but it is the grade pay which in fact determines the grade of a post, therefore, the two posts that is Junior Assistant and Inspector (SPCA) cannot be clubbed together. The learned counsel thereafter, had also submitted that the post of Inspector (SPCA) being a technical post, there was no need of conducting written test. The learned counsel thereafter, had also submitted that the post of Inspector (SPCA) being a technical post, there was no need of conducting written test. zyxw wxyz Whether the two posts belongs to the same grade or not and whether the post of Inspector is a technical post or not would not necessarily be the determining factors as to the requirement or necessity of conducting or including written test in the recruitment process of Inspector (SPCA). One of the main reasons for inclusion of written test and other tests besides oral interview, while conducting a recruitment process is to ensure fairness in the selection process. Therefore, whether the post of Inspector (SPCA) is highly technical or not it would have been better had the written test or other tests were included in the selection process besides the oral interview. However, the fact that the petitioner knew the rules of the game right from the beginning i.e. when the advertisement was published, but did not raise any objection or complaint about it and participated in the recruitment process definitely bars or stands as a bar against him from questioning the same. The law on this has been settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents and the same has been reproduced at para-6 of this judgment; D. Sarojakumari versus- R. Helen Thilakom and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 478 . At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the advertisement inviting applications for the post of Inspector (SPCA) was issued on 04/10/2013 and in that advertisement beside the post of Inspector (SPCA), 3(three) other posts were also advertised; (i) Junior Assistant (H.Q), (ii)Junior Assistant (Sub-ordinate) and (iii) Field Assistant (Stat). Of all the four categories of post advertised except for the post of Inspector (SPCA) it was mentioned that candidates are to appear in the written test. Thus, it can be concluded that the advertisement made it very clear that there was no written test for the post of Inspector (SPCA). Further, on 01/11/2013, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary-cum-Chairman Selection Committee requesting for relaxation of the upper age limit of eligibility so that he can also appear in the examination. However, he did not mention anything about the non inclusion of written test in the recruitment process. Further, on 01/11/2013, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary-cum-Chairman Selection Committee requesting for relaxation of the upper age limit of eligibility so that he can also appear in the examination. However, he did not mention anything about the non inclusion of written test in the recruitment process. Again, on 21/11/2014, through a letter No. A5-7(vacancy)/Pt/2014-15/6131-50 dated the same, the petitioner was informed by the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee to appear for interview on 29/11/2014 and the petitioner without any complaint or murmur appeared in the interview. zyxw wxyz From the above, one can conclude that the petitioner was aware about the fact that written test was not prescribed for the selection process of the post of Inspector (SPCA) but chose to remain quiet even after he received the call letter dated 21/11/2014. There was a time span of more than a 1(one) year between the two dates. Besides, he appeared in the interview. In view of these facts and circumstances and the law settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had forfeited his right to raise any question on the issue. zyxw 11. Now coming to the third ground, the petitioner had contended at paragraph-12 of the writ petition that as per Rule-5(1)(a) of the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class-III and Class-IV posts) Rules, 1997, the selection committee for the post of Inspector (SPCA)should have been constituted as follows; wxyz "i. Appointing authority or the senior most departmental officer available in the district where the vacancy arises nominated by the appointing authority...........Chairman. zyxw wxyz ii. A departmental officer belonging to the office under which vacancy arises............Member Secretary. zyxw wxyz iii. A officer of the rank of EAC upto SDO to be named by Deputy Commissioner of the district where the vacancy arises .Member. zyxw wxyz iv. An officer of the department other than the department under which the vacancy arises to be named by the Deputy Commissioner of the district where the vacancy arises..........Member. zyxw wxyz v. An officer of a department other than the department under which the vacancy arises and the department from which the Deputy Commissioner has nominated an officer as a member of this committee to be named by the appointing authority.........Member". zyxw wxyz v. An officer of a department other than the department under which the vacancy arises and the department from which the Deputy Commissioner has nominated an officer as a member of this committee to be named by the appointing authority.........Member". zyxw wxyz However, the then Director of the department in order to choose candidates of his choice deviated from the above stated rules and formed the selection committee as follows; zyxw wxyz 1. Director, .Chairman A.H & Vet. Deptt. Assam, Chenikuthi, Guwahati-3. zyxw wxyz 2. I/C, Addl. Director, (SAHP) .Member Secretary A.H. & Vety. Dept. Assam, Chenikuthi, Guwahati-3 zyxw wxyz 3. Representative of Assam, ..Member State SPCA represented by D.V.O., Kamrup. zyxw wxyz 4. Chairman, ..Member Assam Go-Seva Samity, Gokul Nagar, Basistha, Kamrup (M) zyxw wxyz 5. Chairman, .Member Guwahati Go-Sala trust, Sati, Joymati Road, Guwahati-8. zyxw wxyz This deviation from the rules, according to the petitioner, has vitiated the selection process, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. The constitution of the selection committee was issued vide order No. A5- 7(Vacancy)/Pt/2013-5987-91, dated 18/11/2014, by the Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, Assam. The same is reproduced here below; zyxw wxyz "OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY & VETERINARY DEPARTMENT ASSAM :: GUWAHATI-3 zyxw wxyz ORDER zyxw wxyz In partial medication of the office Memo No. A5-7(vacancy)Pt/2013/12304-08, dated 30.04.2013 the Committee for selection of 4(four) Nos. of Inspector (SPCA) is here by constituted with the following members due to the holding of the post of Director by the Joint Director (AHA). zyxw wxyz 1. Director, .Chairman A.H & Vet. Deptt. Assam, Chenikuthi, Guwahati-3. zyxw wxyz 2. I/C, Addl. Director, (SAHP) .Member Secretary A.H. & Vety. Dept. Assam, Chenikuthi, Guwahati-3 zyxw wxyz 3. Representative of Assam, ..Member State SPCA represented by D.V.O., Kamrup. zyxw wxyz 4. Chairman, ..Member Assam Go-Seva Samity, Gokul Nagar, Basistha, Kamrup (M) zyxw wxyz 5. Chairman, Member Guwahati Go-Sala Trust, Sati, Joymati Road, Guwahati-8. zyxw wxyz Sd/- Dr. A.A. Sheikh, Director, A.H. & Vety. Deptt., Assam, Ghy-23." zyxw wxyz It appears from the forwarding''s of the order that the same was issued in partial modification of an office order which was already issued earlier on 30/04/2013. However, the same has not been placed before this Court by either of the parties. zyxw wxyz Sd/- Dr. A.A. Sheikh, Director, A.H. & Vety. Deptt., Assam, Ghy-23." zyxw wxyz It appears from the forwarding''s of the order that the same was issued in partial modification of an office order which was already issued earlier on 30/04/2013. However, the same has not been placed before this Court by either of the parties. A glance at the Rule-5(1)(a) of Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to class-III and Class-IV posts) Rules, 1997 and the order dated 18/11/2014 would show that the constitution of the committee given in the Rules and in the order are slightly different. However, there was no major deviation from the rules even if one has to assume that it is the Rules of 1997 which should have been followed in the selection process of the Inspector (SPCA). Moreover, there are certain facts which cannot be ignored, such as; the order which constituted the selection committee was issued on 18/11/2014 and the interview started on 29/11/2014, between the two dates there were 10(ten) clear days time, if the petitioner was really aggrieved or not satisfied with the same he had sufficient time to submit a complaint or to raise objection. But the petitioner did not do any of those. If he had done it, the same has not been brought to the notice of this Court. The petitioner took his chance and appeared in the interview. Having done so he now cannot turn around and question the same recruitment process on that ground. zyxw 12. Though all the grounds on which the petitioner''s case is based on, have been discussed, it may not be out of place to mention here that one of the eligibility criteria given in the advertisement was that the candidate for Inspector (SPCA) should have under gone a training course at A.W.B.I (Animal Welfare Board of India), Chennai. Admittedly, the petitioner did not go for training at A.W.B.I. Therefore, he was not a qualified candidate for the post of Inspector (SPCA). wxyz In view of the discussions and conclusions drawn and the observations made, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. zyxw