Debasish Nama vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. A. T.Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.

The solitary question involves in this writ petition is that whether the petitioner after participating in the selection process can challenge the decision in regard to the methodology adopted by the selection board.

The facts in brief of the case are that the petitioner in pursuance to a notification for employment issued by the Principal Conservator of Forests, Government of Tripura to the post of Forest Guard had applied for the said post. The petitioner was called for interview. He appeared before the interview board and participated in the selection process. The respondents have published the select list of the successful candidates. The petitioner did not find his name in the select list.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the methodology of the selection process adopted by the selection board. Also the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had underlined some unfairness committed by the selection board. The petitioner Debasish Nama had made an application to the Information Officer under the RTI Act and the learned counsel has pointed out that the marks allocated against the Higher Secondary Examination is 14 as well as same marks were allocated to him against his Madhyamik examination. It is the contention of the learned counsel that same marks should not be allocated for being successful in Higher Secondary examination as well as in Madhyamik Examination. To a query of a question, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner Debasish Nama has obtained total 38 marks for the post of Forester and 43 against the post of Forest Guard. I find the private respondents have secured higher marks than that of the petitioner.

The petitioner has failed to justify that he obtained better marks than those of the private respondents who were selected by the selection board. In that view of the matter, I find no force in the submission of learned counsel that the petitioner is placed in better position than that of the private respondents.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also have considered the legal issues involved in the present writ petition. This Court and the Apex Court in the long line of decisions have settled the issues as involved in the instant petition.

It is a settled principle of law that a candidate once participated in the selection process cannot challenge the methodology adopted by the selection board after appearing before the said board without objection. The petitioner challenged the selection process when they did not find his name in the select list. If the petitioner had any genuine grievance against the process and methodology adopted by the selection board, he would have challenged it without participating in the process.

Had the petitioner been selected in the selection process, he would not have challenged the said methodology adopted by the selection board. He would have taken the same benefit as were taken by the selected persons.

In view of the aforesaid position, I find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.