Chattisgarh High Court

Durgesh Verma vs Judge, Family Court Balodabazaar on 2 September, 2025

                                                  1
NIRMALA
RAO




                                                                 2025:CGHC:44640


                                                                                 NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                      WPS No. 3503 of 2022

          1 - Durgesh Verma S/o Kuleshwar Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sakri,
          Post Amera, P.S. And Tehsil Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara
          Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ... Petitioner(s)


                                                versus


          1 - Judge, Family Court Balodabazaar, District Balodabazaar Bhatapara
          Chhattisgarh.


          2 - Selection Committee, Family Court, Balodabazzar District Balodabazaar
          Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Through Its President, Selection Committee, Family Court,
          Balodabazaar        ,        Balodabazzar        Bhatapara         Chhattisgarh.


          3 - Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Bholoaram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Quarter No. I-
          24, Judicial Residential Complex 65 House Kokadi, Balodabazaar District
          Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri Prasoon Bhaduri, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Alok Dubey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.09.2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

"10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindlly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Merit List dated 19.04.2022 (ANNEXURE P-1) and the impugned Order of Appointment dated 22.04.2022 (ANNEXURE P-2) 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent committee to conduct the recruitment process in accordance to the terms and conditions of advertisement.

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue necessary directions to the effect to ascertain proper procedure for recruitment process for the post of Process Server (आदेशिका वाहक) 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court further pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an

advertisement was issued by respondent No.1 inviting

applications from eligible candidates for sanctioned and vacant

posts of Stenographer (Hindi), Assistant Grade-III, Vehicle Driver

and Process Server. He would contend there was only one post

of Process Server in open category. He would contend that the

eligibility criteria specified was Class-8th pass and experience in

the relevant field, if any. He would contend that total 869

applications were received by respondent No.1 and in accordance

with one of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement,

respondent No.1 was under obligation to conduct a written

examination. He would contend that a merit list was prepared on

the basis of a skill efficiency test and interview, wherein the

petitioner was placed at Sr. No.21. He would contend that the

recruitment process adopted by respondent No.1 was erroneous

and contrary to the terms of the advertisement. Therefore, the

merit list dated 20.4.2022 and the appointment order dated

22.4.2022 issued in favour of respondent No.3 may be quashed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would

submit that skill efficiency test and interview were conducted for

the post of Process Server strictly in accordance with the

conditions mentioned in the advertisement. They would further

submit that the petitioner has challenged the recruitment process

only after declaration of the result, particularly when he became

unsuccessful. They would submit that respondent No.3, who

secured 8 out of 10 marks, has already been appointed. It is also

argued that respondent No.2 / Selection Committee decided not

to conduct a written test, and such a decision was within the

discretion of the Committee. Furthermore, it is submitted that the

candidates who had secured more marks than the petitioner were

also not selected and the candidate who secured highest marks

was selected and appointed. They would submit that the petition

is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner has challenged the recruitment process

after its completion particularly, when he was not selected. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anupal Singh and

Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary,

Personnel Department and Others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC

173 while dealing with a similar issue in paras 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 &

61, held as under:

"55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.

56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486, it was held as under:-

"9. ..... The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both

at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. ....."

57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395, it was held as under:-

"73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper........".

58. In Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100, it was held as under:-

"19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, it was further observed:-

"34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not 'palatable' to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process."

59. Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others (2008) 4 SCC 619 wherein, it was held as under:-

"59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection

process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ......The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise........"

61. The private respondents knew that by the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the number of vacancies of different categories have been changed and knowing the same, they participated in the interview and have taken a chance and opportunity thereon without any protest. Having participated in the interview and having failed in the final selection, it is not open to the private respondents to turn around and challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the revised requisition of the number of vacancies in different categories. Having regard to the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not have granted any relief to the private respondents/intervenors."

6. A perusal of the advertisement would reveal that method of

recruitment of Process Server was described specifically. The

selection process was conducted by respondents No.1 & 2 strictly

in accordance with the procedure contemplated in the

advertisement. The petitioner alongwith other candidates

participated in the skill efficiency test and interview, following

which a merit list was prepared. The name of the petitioner

appears at Sr. No.21 in the merit list, whereas respondent No.3,

who secured the highest marks i.e. 8 out of 10 was selected and

appointed. The petitioner has challenged the recruitment process

only after participating in it and declared unsuccessful. Therefore,

as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no case