Dr.Manoj Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“10.I. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the amended Advertisement dated 18/6/13 issued by the Respondent No.2 vide its number 826/12/2013/ Exams and consequently the exams conducted on 29/9/13 may also be quashed/set aside for the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon.”

II. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to complete the process of appointment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Assistant Veterinary Surgeon) by conducting the process of the Interview and on the basis of merit list as per the requisite qualification.

III. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.2 has issued an advertisement for filling the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Assistant Veterinary Surgeon) on 26.12.2012 (Annexure P-1) wherein, there is a specific clause-6(3)(i) that a candidate is to be registered according to Bhartiya Pashu Chikitsa Parishad Adhiniyam 1984 on the date of submission of the application and as per clause 11 of the said advertisement, if the application forms are received in plenty then, written examination will be conducted and last date for submission of application was 22.01.2013 but subsequently, the said Advertisement was amended on 18.06.2013 whereby, the examination was scheduled to be held on 29.09.2013 and the syllabus was also issued and it was also amended that there will be negative marking in the examination.

Shri Kotecha, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that by way of subsequent amendment in the advertisement, Respondent No.2/PSC has changed the rule of game of selection process, which is not permissible under the law and placed reliance in the matter of K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1470 and submits that as per Annexure P-4, total registered candidates are only 685, therefore, there was no need to conduct examination. He further submits that normal practice of the PSC is that when the number of applications received is more than 5 times of the total vacancy, only then the examination would be conducted and therefore, the examination which was conducted on 29.09.2013 is required to be quashed and Respondent No.2/PSC may be directed to initiate the process of appointment only on the basis of interview.

On the other hand, Shri Panda, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/PSC submits that this Petition has been filed belatedly i.e. on 20.11.2013 whereas, the examination schedule was published vide Annexure P-2 on 18.06.2013. He further submits that once a person has appeared in the selection process and remained unsuccessful, then he cannot challenge the same as a candidate cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time and placed reliance in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Rai and Others vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493 and as such, the Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed herewith carefully.

In the matter of Pradeep Kumar Rai and Others vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Others (supra), it was held at para-17 as under:-

“17.  Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four  months  between  the  interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. Thus, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted.”

In view of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, if the facts of the instant case are to be seen, then it is apparent that the Petitioners, after participating in the examination, have challenged the said selection process on the ground of it being baseless and held on illegal basis. However, the clause with regard to written examination has also been mentioned in the original advertisement and as such, there was no change in the rule of game and no down grading in the selection process took place.

Consequent to the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that Respondent No.2/PSC has conducted the selection process in a fair manner by way of selecting more meritorious candidates and the same is not arbitrary in nature and is just and proper.

Accordingly, the Petition is misconceived, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.