0806WP6548.13-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6548 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Laxmi Hiraman Patil, Aged 37 years, occu.
Student, R/o Plot No.21, Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar Society, Takli (Seem), Hingna
Road, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1] The Director, Directorate of Ayurved,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
2] The Assistant Director, Directorate of
Ayurved, New Administrative Building,
Mezzanine Floor, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3] Shri Ayurvedic Mahavidyalaya, Hanuman
Nagar, Nagpur, Through its Director.
4] Principal, Shri Ayurvedic Mahavidyalaya,
Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur.
5] Smt. Chokhoba Motghare, Aged 37 years,
R/o Plot No.18, Road No.5, Near Nag Mata
Hospital, Bajrang Nagar, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the petitioner.
Mr.I.J.Damle, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. A.M.Sudame, counsel for the respondent No.3 & 4.
Mr. S. N.Tapdiya, counsel for the respondent No.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 08.06.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:24:45 ::: 0806WP6548.13-Judgment 2/5 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the selection and appointment of the respondent No.5 on the post of laboratory technician. The petitioner challenges the selection procedure adopted by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for filling up the vacancy in the post of laboratory technician class-III.
2. The respondent No.4 had published an advertisement in daily newspaper Nav-Bharat inviting applications for the post of laboratory technician class-III. The petitioner applied for the said post along with the other candidates. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 selected the respondent No.5 for the said post. Since the selection was based on the oral interview, the High Court set aside the order of selection of the respondent No.5 and directed that fresh interviews be conducted. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 conducted a fresh interview for the petitioner and the respondent No.5. The petitioner secured lesser marks in the interview than the respondent No.5. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 again selected the respondent No.5 for the post of laboratory technician class- III. The petitioner has challenged the said action on the part of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
3. On a reading of the writ petition, it appears that the ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:24:45 ::: 0806WP6548.13-Judgment 3/5 challenge to the selection process is made on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the guidelines issued by the State Government in pursuance of the government resolution dated 19/10/2007. It is stated that the issuance of the advertisement, the conduct of the written examination and the constitution of the selection committee is not made in accordance with the guidelines. It is stated that the approval for filling the post of laboratory technician is not granted to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in accordance with law. It is stated that as per the government resolution dated 19/10/2007, though more marks were liable to be awarded for the written examination and few marks for the interview, the said guidelines were not followed. It is averred in the petition that the respondent No.5 was not duly qualified for holding the post and he was also working in two institutions as a laboratory technician at the same time before he sought his appointment.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the respondents and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition as also the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that there is no scope for interference with the order of selection and appointment of the respondent No.5 on the post of laboratory technician class-III. It is well settled that a candidate participating in ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:24:45 ::: 0806WP6548.13-Judgment 4/5 the selection process cannot turn around at a subsequent stage to challenge the process. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgments reported in (2009) 3 SCC 227 (Amlan Jyoti Borroah v. State of Assam and others), (1997) 4 SCC 426 (University of Cochin v. N. S. Kanjoonjamma) and (2011) 1 SCC 150 (Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission) in this regard. If the petitioner was of the view that the selection process was not conducted in terms of the guidelines laid down by the State Government in the resolution dated 19/10/2007, it was necessary for the petitioner to have challenged the advertisement and the selection process before participating in the same. The petitioner participated in the selection process without raising a challenge to the same. Not only that, the petitioner further abided with the order of this court in the previous writ petition that the petitioner and the respondent No.5 should be interviewed afresh. The petitioner and the respondent No.5 were interviewed by the committee. The respondent No.5 was found to be more meritorious. It appears from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the respondent No.5 was duly qualified to hold the post of laboratory technician class-III. Also, it could not be substantiated by the petitioner that the respondent No.5 was working in two institutions at the same time as a laboratory technician. Nothing is pointed out to show that a candidate cannot gain experience in more than one institutions before ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:24:45 ::: 0806WP6548.13-Judgment 5/5 he applies for a post. The appointment of the respondent No.5 was made in the year 2012. The respondent No.5 is working on the said post since then. In the circumstances of the case, it would not be proper to interfere with the appointment of the respondent No.5 in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, specially when most the grounds raised in the petition pertain to the challenge to the selection process, which is not permissible after a candidate participates in the same.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:24:45 :::