Vrushali Vilas Kuchekar vs Maharashtra Public Service ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4807 Bom

vai

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        WRIT PETITION NO.2460 OF 2017


      Vrushali Vilas Kuchekar, Age 31 years,
      Occupation Residing at Plot No.31,
      Anand Housing Society, Phaltan,
      Taluka Phaltan, District Satara - 415 523.                   ...Petitioner

                 ..Versus..

      1.         Maharashtra Public Service
                 Commission, Having office at 3rd Floor,
                 Bank of India Building, Fort,
                 Mumbai - 400 001.

      2.         State of Maharashtra
                 Through Secretary, Law & Judiciary,
                 Department.

      3.         The Registrar General,
                 Bombay High Court, Mumbai.                        ...Respondents


      Dr.Uday P. Warunjikar with Ms.Vaishnavi Gujarathi for the Petitioner.

      Mr.Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the State - Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

      Mr.Rahul Nerlekar for the Respondent No.3.

                           CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
                                   V.G. BISHT, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 3RD MARCH, 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON : 17TH MARCH, 2021.

JUDGMENT (Per R.D. Dhanuka, J.) :-

1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service.

By consent of parties, the writ petition is heard finally.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside

the second proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Judicial

Service Rules, 2008 to the extent of putting a cut of mark 40% in

viva-voce examination and also prays for quashing and setting aside

the advertisement more particularly condition no.8.4 by holding that it

is ultra-vires the Article 14 to the Constitution of India. The petitioner

has also prayed for an order and direction against the respondents to

consider the name of the petitioner for recommendation for

appointment of the post of Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil

Judge, Junior Division. The petitioner has prayed for an order and

direction against the respondents to produce the name of panels,

who had conducted the interviews and the candidates who appeared

before them in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the

respondent no.1.

3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this

petition are as under :

The petitioner, who is an advocate, has obtained degree

of B.Sc. and later completed LL.B. course. The petitioner was

enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa

some time in the year 2009.

4. In the year 2015, the respondent no.1 issued an

advertisement for holding a preliminary examination for the post of

Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge Junior Division. The

petitioner had submitted her application pursuant to the said

advertisement and was given an attempt card. The petitioner belongs

to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner appeared for the written

examination held on 4th October, 2015 and was declared as

successful therein. It is the case of the petitioner that based on the

performance of the petitioner in the written examination, the

petitioner was eligible for the oral interview. The petitioner

accordingly appeared for interview. The respondent no.1 declared

the final result. It is the case of the petitioner that in the final result

which was available in the month of March, 2016, the petitioner came

to know that she had scored only 13 marks in the interview out of 50

marks and 120 marks out of 200 marks in the written examination.

5. On 4th April, 2016, the petitioner preferred an application

under the provisions of Right to Information Act and applied for

certain information including a list of recommend candidates for the

said post of Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge, Junior

Division. The petitioner was given the list of recommend candidates

as well as the list of candidates who were though initially qualified

but were not qualified after interview. The petitioner thereafter made

a representation to the respondent no.2 on 2nd July, 2016 and also on

25th July, 2016. The petitioner did not receive any reply from the

respondent no.2 in response to the said representations. It is the

case of the petitioner that the petitioner personally went and met the

Desk Officer and was informed orally that the file of the petitioner had

been closed. It is the case of the petitioner that in the list of

candidates called for interviews for the said post, the name of the

petitioner was shown at serial no.417. The petitioner secured 120

marks out of 200 marks in the written examination and 13 marks out

of 50 marks in the interview. On 18 th February, 2017 the petitioner

filed this writ petition.

6. Dr.Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited

our attention to various exhibits annexed to the writ petition. He

placed reliance on condition no.8.4 of the advertisement issued by

the respondent no.1 and also on the second proviso to Rule 6(2)(a)

of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008. He submits that the

said Rule 6 contemplated recruitment by nomination and fixed a limit

of 15 marks of viva-voce examination. He submits that under the first

proviso to Rule 6(2)(a), relaxation of marks in the written examination

to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates is provided.

However, there is no such relaxation provided to the candidates

belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe at the stage of

viva-voce examination which amounted to act of discrimination.

7. It is submitted that fixing of 40% marks in viva-voce

examination is arbitrary and unreasonable and did not have any

nexus with the object to be achieved. Though while considering the

skill under written examination, proviso is meant for relaxation in

qualifying marks for Scheduled Caste candidate, however, while

evaluating the viva-voce examination, there is no relaxation for

Scheduled Candidate. In view of the fact that the Schedule Caste

candidates have been provided reservation, in view of their peculiar

problem, denial of benefit of relaxation in viva-voce amounts to

discrimination. The benefits which were granted in respect of the

written examination to the Scheduled Caste candidates ought to

have been extended also in case of viva-voce. He submits that

second proviso to Rule 6 (2)(a) is ultra-vires Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

8. The next submission of the learned counsel is that though

in the advertisement issued by the respondent no.1, there was no

provision made for the appointment of two panels for conducting

interviews of the candidates, the respondent no.1 constituted two

panels. In the affidavit in reply of the respondent no.1, there is no

denial to this submission of the petitioner. The respondents did not

produce any mark sheet in the affidavit in reply.

9. It is submitted that the criteria for assessment of

performance in viva-voce is not placed on record by the respondent

no.1 before this Court and has been withheld from perusal of this

Court. The constitution of two panels for conducting viva-voce was

without any provision made in Rule and without informing the

candidates in the advertisement. There was arbitrariness and

unreasonableness in conducting viva-voce examination of two

panels. He submits that Rule is that once the candidate participates

in the selection process, he should not be allowed to raise the

question about the selection process. However such Rule is not

applicable to the facts of the present case as in the advertisement

issued no such information was provided to the candidates that there

would be more than one panel and there would be separate

assessment among the candidates at viva-voce stage.

10. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know about such

multiple panels only at the time of appearing for the interview for

such viva-voce post. The respondents have not produced the names

of the panel members of both the panels and marks allotted to them.

The respondents have withheld this important information from this

Court and also from the petitioner. Most of the candidates who

appeared before the panel who conducted viva-voce of the petitioner

got less marks as compared to another panel who gave substantial

marks. Such discrimination is violative of basic principles of rule of

law as well as foul play in selection process.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the

unreported judgment of this Court delivered on 19th September, 2018

in case of Krantikumar Kishanrao Kolvar & Ors. vs. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.9929 of 2018,

judgment of this Court in case of Manoj Arvindrao Sable & Ors.

vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2011(2) ALL MR 325, judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Kumar vs. High

Court of Delhi & Anr., (2010) 3 SCC 104, judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala &

Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 395, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

case of All India Judges" Association & Ors. vs. Union of India &

Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247 and would submit that all these judgments

are against the petitioner.

12. Mr.Rahul Nerlekar, learned counsel for the respondent

no.3 i.e. The Registrar General, Bombay High Court, Mumbai

submits that the entire recruitment process pursuant to the said

advertisement issued by the respondent no.1 in the month of May,

2015 has been already completed. Two more recruitment process

have been completed thereafter. Nothing survives in this writ petition

and on this ground itself the petition shall be dismissed. He submits

that in any event, there is no substance in any of the grounds raised

by the petitioner in this writ petition.

13. Learned counsel placed reliance on an unreported

judgment of this Court delivered on 18 th April, 2018 in case of Maroti

Prakash Pavade vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. and in particular

paragraph 5 thereof and would submit that this Court held that in

view of further selection process having been undertaken for the

selection process pursuant to the advertisement in question, prayer

of the petitioner that the direction be given to the respondents to

appoint the petitioner on any of the vacant post could not be

considered. There was no question of maintaining vacant post from

the selection process undertaken pursuant to the original

advertisement.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 strongly placed

reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Aarti Madhukar

Gaikwad & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. delivered on 12th

September, 2011 in Writ Petition No.1364 of 2010 and would submit

that this Court in the said judgment has rejected the contention of the

petitioner that the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste /

Scheduled Tribe were also entitled to the benefit of concession of 5%

mark also in case of viva-voce. The petitioner was not in a position to

substantiate the said contention. He submits that in this case also the

pleadings filed by the petitioner are totally vague and does not point

out as to how there was discrimination in not providing relaxation to

the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe candidates of 5% in marks in

viva-voce examination.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 also strongly

placed reliance on an unreported judgment delivered on 9 th July,

2013 in Writ Petition No.1259 of 2012 in case of Miss Nivedita

Vitthal Kharatmal vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. and would

submit that the Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment has

followed the judgment in case of Aarti Madhukar Gaikwad & Ors.

(supra) and rejected the challenge to 4 th proviso to clause (e) of the

Sub-rule (1) if Rule (6) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules,

2008 which was identical to the proviso in question.

16. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner

admittedly having participated in the selection process cannot be

allowed to raise any objection about validity or legality of any of the

provisions prescribed in the selection procedure at this stage after

having failed in the selection procedure. He relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Taniya Malik vs. Registrar

General of High Court of Delhi, AIR 2018 SC 1245 and in

particularly paragraphs 16 to 19 in support of this submission. He

submits that the petitioner having failed in the viva-voce test, cannot

be allowed to challenge the selection procedure. He also placed

reliance on the judgments brought to our notice by Dr.Warunjikar in

case of Krantikumar Kishanrao Kolvar & Ors. (supra),Manoj

Arvindrao Sable & Ors. (supra), Ramesh Kumar (supra), K.H.

Siraj supra), All India Judges" Association & Ors. (supra) in

support of his submission that the petitioner having participated in

the selection procedure and having failed, cannot be allowed to

challenge the selection procedure subsequently.

17. Insofar as the submission of Dr.Warunjikar, learned

counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.1 could not have

constituted multiple panels for taking interviews is concerned, it is

submitted that the said submission is based on presumption. When

the respondent no.1 had invited applications by issuing an

advertisement, number of candidates who would be participating in

response to such interview was not known. He submits that

considering the number of applicants having applied in response to

the said advertisement, it was not possible for one panel to take

interview of all the candidates. Two panels were thus appointed to

take interview of large number of applicants.

18. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in Rule 6 (2)(a),

it was clearly provided that the candidate who secures not less than

50% marks in each paper in written examination shall be eligible for

the viva-voce examination for appointment to the concerned post. 2nd

proviso to the said Rule provided that candidate who obtains 40%

marks in viva-voce examination shall be eligible for selection. The

viva-voce examination was for 50 marks. Admittedly the petitioner

secured only 13 marks out of 50 marks earmarked for viva-voce

examination. He submits that even if 5% relaxation would have been

considered in case of the petitioner who belongs to the Scheduled

Caste category for considering passing marks in viva-voce, the

petitioner would yet not be eligible for selection.

19. Dr.Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioner in

rejoinder would submit that the judgment of this Court in case of

Maroti Prakash Pavade (supra) and more particularly in paragraph

5 thereof would not be a proposition of law. He submits that the

respondent no.1 could not have constituted more than one panel.

Learned counsel lastly submitted that the petitioner has already

crossed the age bar now.

20. Mr.Mali, learned AGP submits that no case is made out by

the petitioner for grant of any relief as prayed or otherwise. He relied

upon the submissions made by the respondent no.1 in the affidavit

filed before this Court on 18th November, 2017.

REASONS & CONCLUSION :-

21. The petitioner who is a practicing advocate had submitted

an application for the post of Judicial Magistrate, First Class and Civil

Judge, Junior Division pursuant to the advertisement issued by the

respondent no.1. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste.

The petitioner has secured 120 marks out of 200 marks in the written

examination and 13 marks out of 50 marks in interview and thus was

not declared as a successful candidate for the said post. The

petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of 2 nd proviso of

the Rule 6(2) (a) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 to

the extent of putting a cut of marks of 40% in viva-voce exam as ultra

virus Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

22. Rule 6(2)(a) of the said Service Rules reads thus :-

(6) Recruitment by Nomination :-

(2)(a) Candidate who secures not less than

fifty percent of marks in each paper in written

examination shall be eligible for the viva-voca

examination for appointment to the post of

District Judge under 1(b) and 1(c) and Civil

Judge, Junior Division under 3(A) of the table 'c'

under rule 5 and by nomination;

Provided that Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe candidates who obtain fofty-five

percent or more marks in the written

examination shall be eligible for the viva voce

examination ;

Provided further that the candidate

who obtains 40% marks in viva-voce

examination shall be eligible for selection.

23. The petitioner does not dispute that before submitting an

application form for the said post, the petitioner never raised any

objection in respect of the second proviso of the said Service Rules

at any point of time and voluntarily participated in the selection

process for the said post. The grievance now raised in the writ

petition is that though under the first proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) 5%

relaxation in marks in the written examination is given to the

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates, in the second

proviso to the said Rule, no such relaxation of 5% is given to the

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates. Insofar as marks

for viva-voce examination for the purpose of eligibility of the person is

concerned, the validity of the said second proviso to Rule 2(6)(a) is

challenged on the ground of alleged discrimination and ultra virus

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that

even if the petitioner would have granted 5% relaxation in respect of

viva-voce examination candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste,

the petitioner had not secured even 35% marks i.e. 17.5 marks in

viva-voce examination. It is an admitted position that the petitioner

has secured 13 marks out of 50 marks and was thus even otherwise

not eligible for selection for the said post of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

First Class and Civil Judge Junior Division. The petitioner thus cannot

challenge the validity of the said proviso of Rule 6(2)(a) of the said

Service Rules having no cause of action to challenge the said

provision.

25. Be that as it may, the petitioner having participated in the

selection procedure without any protest and having failed in the

selection procedure cannot be allowed to challenge the selection

process or to challenge the validity of the proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of

the said Service Rules. Dr.Warunjikar, learned counsel invited our

attention to four judgments of this Court and one judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and would submit that these judgments are

against the petitioner.

26. This Court in case of Krantikumar Kishanrao Kolvar &

Ors. (supra) has considered the challenge to the constitutional

validity of Rule 6(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules,

2008 prescribing atleast 40% marks in viva-voce test to be eligible for

selection process to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and

Judicial Magistrate, First Class as being ultra virus of Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution of India. This Court considered the

recommendation of the Shetty Commission in the said judgment and

after adverting to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case

of Taniya Malik vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of

Delhi, 2018(3) SCALE 64 and various other judgments held that

interview or viva-voce constitutes an important component of the

selection process and that the cut-off marks fixed results in weeding

out the unsuitable candidates. This Court also considered the Rule

6(2)(a) of the said Service Rules and rejected the contentions of the

petitioner therein that under the said Rule, it is mandated that a

scheme of examination of the candidate including written and viva-

voce shall be framed by the High Court in consultation with the

Commission.

27. This Court held that the party calling in question the

constitutionality of a provision has to place and produce evidence to

prima facie sustain such a challenge as there is a presumption as

regards the constitutionality of a provision. In this case also, the

petitioner has not substantiated ground on which the constitutional

validity of the second proviso of the Rule 6(2)(a) of the Service Rules

nor has produced any evidence to prima facie sustain such a

challenge as there is a presumption as regards the constitutionality of

the provision. The principles laid down by this Court in case of

Krantikumar Kishanrao Kolvar & Ors. (supra) squarely applies to

the facts of this case. We are respectfully bound by the said

judgment.

28. Division Bench of this Court in case of Manoj s/o.

Arvindrao Sable & Ors. (supra) after adverting to the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.H.Siraj vs. High Court of

Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 395 and after considering the same rule held

that the Shetty Commission recommendations would indicate that the

candidate getting less than 40% marks in viva-voca is to be given "F"

grade with zero grade value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

for any employment the candidate must not only have what is called

"the hard skills" i.e. the knowledge about the subject, but he must

also possess "the soft skills" i.e. the manner in which the knowledge

is to be put into practice. In our view, the percentage prescribed in

the first and second proviso of Rule 6(2)(a) is in conformity with the

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

K.H.Siraj (supra). There is thus no substance in the challenge to the

constitutional validity of the second proviso of the Rule 6(2)(a) of the

said Service Rules even on merits.

29. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Kumar

(supra) has held that in case the statutory rules prescribe a particular

mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence accordingly. In

case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules and there is no other

impediment in law, the competent authority while laying down the

norms for selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the

minimum Bench Marks for written test as well as for viva-voce. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association's case has

accepted Justice Shetty Commission's Report. The principles laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court applies to the facts of this case.

We are respectfully bound by the said judgment.

30. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.H.Siraj (supra) held

that candidate who participated in the interview with knowledge that

for selection they had to secure prescribed minimum pass marks on

being unsuccessful in interview could not turn around and challenge

that the said provision of minimum marks was improper. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the said judgment considered the Kerala Judicial

Service Rules, 1991 which were similar and rejected the challenge to

the said rules made by the candidate. It is held that it is not open for

the High Court to prescribe bench marks for the written examination

and oral test in order to achieve the purpose of getting the best

available talent.

31. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment considered

its earlier judgment in case of Delhi Bar Association v. Union of

India and Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 159 and held that if a candidate fails

to secure even this bare minimum, it cannot be postulated that he is

suitable for the job of Munsif Magistrate, as assessed by five

experienced Judges of the High Court. The principles laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment would apply to the

facts of this case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of All India

Judges' Association and others (supra) accepted Justice Shetty

Commission recommendation and more particular in respect of the

marking pattern for selecting any candidate for the post of judicial

officer.

32. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Taniya Malik (supra)

held that interview is the best method to assess the ability of the

candidate and to judge the capacity and minimum marks can also be

prescribed. In case a candidate fails in an interview it cannot be said

that he is suitable for the job of a Munsif Magistrate. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the said judgment reiterated the principles laid

down in the case of K.S.Siraj (supra). In the said judgment of

Taniya Malik (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in written

exam, even the person with no caliber who takes decision by

cramming may obtain better marks. When the Judges of the High

Court too are appointed by adjudging the performance and intellect,

an interview would be indispensable for judicial post.

33. It is held that criteria of experience of practice for direct

recruitment of 7 years whether actually gained can be adjudged only

by interview, communicating skills and by elucidation of certain

aspects which would not be possible by written exam alone. In

paragraphs (19) of the judgment it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that the Petitioners have undertaken the exam with the

stipulation of minimum cut off marks in written and oral examination

and then having failed, they cannot turn round and are estopped to

contend to the contrary.

34. In this case also, the petitioner has participated in the

written examination and also in viva-voce examination fully knowing

well the said Rule 6(2)(a) including the proviso thereto to the said

Service Rules and having failed cannot be allowed to challenge the

constitutional validity of the said second proviso to the said Rule 6(2)

(a) of Service Rules now. The petitioner is estopped from challenging

the validity of the said Rule. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Taniya Malik (supra) applies to the facts of

this case. We are respectfully bound by the said judgment. In our

view, considering the importance of the interview in the process of

appointment of a candidate on any judicial post, not granting the

relaxation in marks as granted to a schedule caste or schedule tribe

candidate in written examination while passing viva-voce examination

is intentional and justified.

35. Division Bench of this Court in the judgment delivered on

12th September, 2011 in case of Aarti Madhukar Gaikwad & Ors.

vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Writ Petition No.1364 of 2010

after adverting to various judgments and also to the

recommendations made in Justice Shetty Commission, considered

the constitutional validity of the Rule 6(2)(a) of the said Service Rules

and held that the petitioner who has challenged the validity of the

Rule 6(a) and belongs to the Scheduled Caste was not in position to

substantiate the said contention. In this case also the pleadings of

the petitioner are totally vague. The petitioner has totally failed to

substantiate the challenge to the constitutional validity of the second

proviso of Rule 6(2)(a). The said judgment of Division Bench of this

Court in case of Aarti Madhukar Gaikwad & Ors. (supra) applies to

the facts of this case. We are respectfully bound by the said

judgment. Even otherwise, we do not propose to take different view

in the matter.

36. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment delivered

in case of Miss Nivedita Vitthal Kharatmal (supra) has adverted to

the judgment of this Court in case of Manoj s/o. Arvindrao Sable &

Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2011 (2) All MR 325 and in

case of Aarti Madhukar Gaikwad & Ors. (supra) and has reiterated

the said principles of law laid down by this Court in the said

judgment. In our view there is no merit in the challenge to the

constitutional validity of the second proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) as ultra

virus of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India or otherwise.

37. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the respondent no.1 having constituted two interview

panel subsequently and no such information was disclosed in the

advertisement issued by the respondent no.1 or in the Service Rules

is concerned, in our view, Mr.Nerlekar, learned counsel for the

respondent no.3 is right in his submission that when the

advertisement was issued, the respondent no.1 was not expected to

know the number of applications that would be received in response

to the said advertisement. We have perused the Service Rules and

do not find any bar under those Service Rules or any provision

preventing the number of panels for having viva-voce examination.

38. In this case, there were large number of applications

received in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent

no.1 and thus the respondent no.1 had constituted two interview

panels. The submissions made by the learned counsel that out of two

panels, one panel was very liberal in granting marks whereas the

other panel which interviewed the petitioner as well as some other

candidates gave less marks is out of frustration. No candidate has

any option to be interviewed by any particular panel. This Court

cannot go into the issue as to how the candidates who had appeared

before one or the other panel had faired. There is thus no merit in this

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

39. Be that as it may, the petitioner has even otherwise

completed the age bar and thus cannot be considered for

appointment to the said post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and

Junior Magistrate, First Class. After completion of the selection

procedure in question, two more selection procedure had been

already completed. The petitioner did not participate in those two

selection procedure and thus cannot be granted any relief as at this

stage even if there is any vacancy having arisen for any post under

the selection procedure which was subject matter of this petition or

conducted thereafter. The petitioner thus cannot be allowed to

challenge the selection procedure or the terms and conditions

prescribed for appointing a candidate.

40. The petition is totally devoid of merit and is accordingly

dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

(V.G. BISHT, J.)                                     (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)


 Vasant            Digitally signed by
                   Vasant A. Idhol

 A. Idhol          Date: 2021.03.17
                   14:20:14 +0530