AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.C.S. Rawat, J.—This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the following relief(s);
(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the merit list dated 1.11.2008 prepared by respondent. No. 2 against the terms and conditions published in advertisement jot the post of Block Programme Officer vide Advertisement hitter No. 369/SSA Dhanbad dated 12.5.07.
(b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to fill up the advertised post in accordance with the terms and conditions given in the advertisement letter No. 369/SSA Dhanbad dated 12.5.07 and appoint the petitioner being a genuine candidate who is fulfilling all the criteria as given in the Advertisement Letter.
(c) For issuance of any other writ/writs, order orders, direction/directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.
It is alleged in the petition that the respondents authority advertised several posts including the post of Block Programme Officer on contract on 12th May, 2007. The petitioner, who was fulfilling all the criteria and conditions, given in the Advertisement, applied for the post of Block Programme Officer under the category of O.B.C. The petitioner was issued the Admit-card for appearing in the written examination, winch was held on 22-6-2008. Thereafter, the merit list was prepared on 1.11.2008 on the basis of the result of the written examination. The petitioner has further alleged that the candidates for the Block Programme Officer were objecting the procedure for the appointment of Block Programme Officer, as being adopted by respondent No. 2. It has also been averred in the petition that the candidates have raised objections for taking examination m English.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State contended that the petitioner has appeared in examination and he has not objected during the course of examination and when he was not selected, he has filed this writ application challenging the said appointment. He is estopped from challenging the examination process.
I heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused me record.
From perusal of record, it reveals that no such document has been filed, which shows that before appearing in the examination or the interview, the petitioner has protested regarding the manner of selection. When the merit list was prepared and the petitioner was not selected, be has made the grievances before the Competent Authority and thereafter, he has filed this writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner fails to demonstrate me any such document by which, any objection was raised before appearing in the examination and the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain news items, which can not be made the basis of the objection made by the petitioner.
It is settled proposition of law that the candidate who had participated in the interview with a knowledge for selection, and he had not secured minimum pass mark and on being unsuccessful in the interview or examination, could not turn around and challenged the said process of examination on the ground that it was not proper or the Selection Committee was not constituted as per provision and as such, the said challenge is liable to be ignored on the ground of estoppel The principle of law has been laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, , Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, , Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985(2) SCC 141 and recently reported in the judgment of K.H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others,
In view of the above, this petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No. order as to cost.