Bombay High Court
C.M.Nair vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2017
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
1 227.1800.97 wp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1800 OF 1997
C. M. Nair .....Petitioner
Motor Driver, Gr. II,
Chief Security Commissioner's Office,
RPF, Mumbai CST
V/s.
1. Union of India }
2. Chief Security Commissioner }
Railway Protection Force, Mumbai, C.S.T. }
3. C. A. Yadav }
4. R.S. Dubey } ....Respondents
5. R.A. Pal }
Nos. 3 to 5 working as Grade II Motor }
Drivers under the control of the office of }
Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, }
Mumbai, CST. }
Mr. K. P. Shah i/b Mr. P. B. Shah for the petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondent no. 2
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK,
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2017.
ism
2 227.1800.97 wp
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action on the part of
the respondents of denying the promotion to the petitioner from 'driver grade-
2' to 'driver grade-1' category.
The petitioner was appointed as 'driver grade-3' by the respondent and
in due course of time, the petitioner was promoted to driver grade-2. Since the
petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of driver grade-1, the
petitioner participated in the selection process along with the other drivers.
The respondents conducted the written examination and practical examination
Promotion was however refused to the petitioner in view of the failure on the
part of the petitioner to qualify in the written examination. The petitioner has
challenged the action on the part of the respondent of refusing to promote the
petitioner as driver grade-1.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent
could not have conducted the written examination as according to the Rules,
the written examination was not contemplated. It is stated that since the
written examination could not have been conducted by the respondents for
promotion to the post of driver-1, the candidature of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of driver grade-1 could not have been rejected on his
failure in the written test.
ism
3 227.1800.97 wp
The petitioner is estopped from challenging the action on the part of the
respondent of conducting the written examination. The petitioner had
appeared at the written examination conducted by the respondent without
raising any objection to the same. After having failed in the written
examination, the petitioner has challenged the action on the part of the
respondent of conducting the written test. It is well settled that a candidate
participating in the selection process cannot question the process at a
subsequent stage. The petitioner ought to have challenged the action on the
part of the respondent of conducting the written examination before appearing
at the same, if the petitioner was of the view that the written examination
could not have been conducted by the respondents. It is held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgments reported in 2009 (3) S.C.C. 227, 2008 (4)
S.C.C. 171, 2010 (12) S.C.C. 576 and 2011 (1) S.C.C. 150 that challenge to
the selection criteria after participation in the selection process is not
permissible. Since the petitioner had appeared at the written examination and
failed in the same, the petitioner cannot question the action on the part of the
respondent of conducting the written examination.
Since there is no merit in the only submission made on behalf of the
petitioner for challenging the refusal on the part of the respondent to promote
the petitioner, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.]
ism
