G. Muthurajan vs The State of Tamilnadu and Others

D. Hari Paranthaman, J.—The petitioner participated for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2015 issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai. He was successful in the written test. Thereafter, he participated in the Physical Endurance Test. Though he participated in the running event, he did not participate in the next event for one reason or other. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P(MD) No. 14016 of 2015 to permit him to participate in the subsequent event in the Physical Endurance Test by conducting a special test for him, but the same was dismissed. The appeal filed against the dismissal of W.P(MD) No. 14016 of 2015 was also dismissed in W.A(MD) No. 1033 of 2015.

In these circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the recruitment process conducted by the 3rd respondent as illegal and to direct the respondents to proceed with fresh selection from the stage of Physical Endurance Test.

Heard both sides.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner was made to run together with others without providing a separate track to each one of the participants in the running event. Hence, the selection process without providing a separate track is bad.

Secondly, it is contended that no screening test to forbid the use of drugs was conducted and hence, there is a possibility of using drugs by some of the persons who participated in the running event.

Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court to conduct a fair selection by providing a separate track to each one of the participants in the running event and also to have a screening test before the conduct of the running event. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in B. Ramanjini and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, .

On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioner participated in the running event and he was successful. However, the petitioner did not participate in the next event in the Physical Endurance Test. While so, he has come with this writ petition with unclean hands without disclosing the aforesaid facts. It is further submitted that a person who participated in the selection process could not complain thereafter that the selection process was not fairly conducted. In support of his contention, he has relied on a judgment in W.P(MD) No. 13041 of 2010 dated 25.10.2010 (R. Ugendran v. The Chairman, Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai and Member, Sub Committee, Ramanathapuram).

I have considered the submissions made on either side.

At the outset, I would like to record that pleadings made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are not clear and the pleadings are vague. The crux of the pleadings is that separate track shall be provided to the participants of running event and a screening test shall be conducted before the running event to forbid the use of drugs. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was a candidate for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2015 issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai. He was successful in written test. He also participated in the running event. He was also successful therein. However, it seems that he did not participate in the subsequent event in the Physical Endurance Test. Hence, he could not be considered for selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. He already filed W.P(MD) No. 14016 of 2015 seeking for a direction to hold a special test for him on the ground that he suffered sports injury in the running event.

Admittedly, W.P(MD) No. 14016 of 2015 was dismissed by this Court as per the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition. The petitioner also took it on appeal in W.A(MD) No. 1033 of 2015 and the Hon''ble Division Bench also dismissed the writ appeal and confirmed the order of the learned single Judge.

In these circumstances, the petitioner has again approached this Court to prevent the selection process and has sought the same prayer in effect which he has sought for in W.P(MD) No. 14016 of 2015.

The very purpose of filing of the present writ petition is to hold a fresh selection from Stage II namely, Physical Endurance Test. The petitioner was not successful earlier in W.P(MD) No. 14016 of 2015 as stated above.

Hence, I am of the view that the learned Government Advocate is correct in his submission that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Furthermore, the petitioner who was successful in the running event, cannot complain that separate track shall be provided. It is not his case that due to non providing of separate track, he was in a disadvantageous position. In fact, he was successful in the running event. Therefore, at this stage, he could not contend that separate track shall be provided and running event shall be held again.

Likewise, the issue relating to holding of screening test to forbid the use of drugs also has no substance. If the rules do not provide for such a method, the petitioner has to question the rule and this Court cannot issue a direction to hold screening test, particularly, in the facts and circumstances of this case.

The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not support the case of the petitioner. In that case, the selection process held was cancelled due to mass copying. When the matter went to the Apex Court, the Apex Court upheld the cancellation on the ground that there shall be a fair procedure. Therefore, I am not able to understand as to how this judgment could help the petitioner.

On the other hand, the judgment relied on the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is directly on the point and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment in W.P.(MD) No. 13041 of 2010 dated 25.10.2010 (R. Ugendran v. The Chairman, Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai and Member, Sub Committee, Ramanathapuram). In that case, this Court held that unsuccessful candidates after participation in the selection process cannot challenge the selection and they are estopped from doing so. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment.

"3. However, this court is not inclined to entertain such writ petition as there is no vested right for demanding a fresh test with the assistance of the Court. There is no malafide alleged against the respondents while conducting the test. If he did not satisfy the authorities about his endurance, this court by no stretch of imagination can grant yet another opportunity for fulfilling the norms merely because the petitioner has come to this court with that relief.

The Supreme Court has held that the unsuccessful candidates after participating in the selection process cannot challenge the selection and they are estopped from doing so. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines and Others, . Reliance was placed upon paragraphs 54 and 55 of the said judgment, which are as follows:

The Corporation did not violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellant having participated in the selection process along with the contesting respondents without any demur or protest cannot be allowed to turn round and question the very same process having failed to qualify for the promotion.

In Madan Lal v. State of J&K this Court observed: (SCC p.493, paras 9-10)

"9. ... 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....

Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful."

Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla."

For all the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 is closed.