The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to assail the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide which the learned Tribunal rejected the original application preferred by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had sought appointment to the post of Junior (ECG) Technician.
The Court observed that if the petitioner had any grievance against the change of the selection criteria he should have raised a grievance at that stage itself.
Brief Facts:
On 27.05.2013, respondent no.3 issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up 15 posts of Jr. (ECG) Technician. As per the ‘Scheme of Selection’ referred to in the aforesaid advertisement, the selection to the posts was to be made only based on an interview which was to be conducted by a ‘Selection Committee’ constituted by respondent no. 3. It is the common case of the parties that instead of conducting the interviews, the respondents decided to hold a written examination in which the petitioner duly appeared. When the results of this selection process were declared on 26.04.2016, the petitioner realized that he had not been selected and therefore approached the learned Tribunal in May 2016 by way of O.A No. 1664/2016 which was dismissed under the impugned order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that once the respondents had vide their advertisement dated 27.05.2013 notified that the selection would be made only the basis of the interview, they could not change the rules of the game and decide to hold the selection based on the written examination and skill test.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the petitioner having without any reservation participated in the selection process by appearing not only in the written exam but also in the skill test, cannot now be permitted to challenge the same.
The Court noted that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Though appointments to the post of Junior EGC Technician, a Group C post, were initially envisaged to be made through interview, taking into account the subsequent decision of the DoPT, it was decided to conduct selection by way of a written test followed by a skill test, which criteria was given wide publicity.
The Court observed that once the petitioner had voluntarily participated in the selection process, he could not be permitted to challenge the same after he emerged unsuccessful. If the petitioner had any grievance against the change of the selection criteria he should have raised a grievance at that stage itself.
The Decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court, dismissing the petition, held that having taken his chance by appearing both in the written exam and skill test, the petitioner cannot now be heard to complain that the selection criteria were changed midway.
Case Title: Tarun Kataria v Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Palli and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Case No.: W.P.(C) 7560/2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Chauhan
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Dev. P. Bhardwaj
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
