Bombay High Court
Shri. K.S. Kadam And Anr vs The Director, Directorate Of ... on 29 June, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
jsn 1 903-wp-4927-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4927 OF 2015
Shri K.S. Kadam & Anr. ... Petitioners
Vs.
The Director,
Directorate of Technical Education & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.B. Borkar, Adv. for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Chetan G. Patil, Adv for Respondents Nos. 4 & 5.
Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for the Respondent - State Nos. 1 and 3.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 29 JUNE 2017.
J U D G M E N T :- (Per B.R. Gavai, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Petitioners on
the question of grant of interim protection.
jsn 2 903-wp-4927-2015
3. The Petitioners challenges the validity of the Government
Resolution dated 10th September 2012 and seeks mandamus to the
1st Respondent to accept the proposal submitted by the management
to appoint the Petitioner as Head of the Department.
4. It appears that initially the Respondent management had
decided to fill up the post of Head of the Department by promotion
and accordingly a proposal was sent for grant of approval to the
appointment of the Petitioners as Head of the Department. However,
in the meantime, the GR which is under challenge came to be issued
and in pursuance to the said G.R., advertisements were issued. The
candidates who are intervenors and the Petitioners appeared for the
interview, which were held on 15th and 16th November 2013. It
appears that the intervenors were found to be successful in the said
interview and the Petitioners were not found to be successful. The
Petitioners thereafter after waiting for a period of two years have filed
present Petition in the month of May 2015.
5. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that since the rules on the basis of which intervenors are
jsn 3 903-wp-4927-2015
selected are not applicable to the private polytechnics, the Petitioners
have good merits for grant of interim relief. By now it is settled
principle of law that a candidate after participating in the selection
process and after having declared unsuccessful is normally precluded
from approaching the Court, challenging the selection process, on the
ground of 'taking chances'. The reliance in this respect could be
placed on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J & K & Ors. 1 , which has been
followed subsequently by various judgments.
6. No doubt that, Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the
Petitioners is justified in relying on some judgments of the Apex Court
which held that the said rule is not hard and fast rule and exceptions
are permissible. However, in the present case participation in the
selection process, permitting the selection process to complete,
waiting for a period of almost two years and thereafter approaching
this Court, in our considered view would at least prima facie does not
not make out a case for departure from the rule laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Madan Lal (Supra).
1 (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 486
jsn 4 903-wp-4927-2015
7. In that view of the matter, the case is not made out for
grant of interim relief. In any case if the Petitioners succeed they can
always be compensated in the monetary terms.
8. The prayer for interim relief stands rejected.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) ( B.R. GAVAI J.)
