Bombay High Court
Laxmi Hiraman Patil vs The Director, Directorate Of ... on 8 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
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
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
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
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
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
