For Petitioner : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate
For State : Mr. Anil Pandey, G.A.
For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
(10.1) It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to call for the entire records
concerning the present selection, and the
comparative results, for its kind perusal.
(10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting
aside order dated 30.12.2020(Annexure P-1) and
redrawn the entire merit list published by
respondent authority on 30.12.2020(Annexure P-
2) selection list for the Assistant Veterinary
Surgeon issued by respondent No. 3.
(10.3) Any other relief / relief's which this Hon'ble
Court may think fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, with cost of the
petition may also be pleased to be granted to the
petitioner.
2) Facts of present case are that Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission issued an advertisement on 19.2.2020 for recruitment
to the post of Class-II Veterinary Assistant Surgeon under Animal
and Husbandry Department to fill up 80 vacant and 82 back-log
posts. Examination was to conducted in two stages - (1) written
stage and (2) interview stage. However, sufficient number of
application forms were not received, therefore CGPSC decided to
conduct interview directly. Petitioner submitted the application form
and participated in the recruitment process. Thereafter, merit list was
published on 30.12.2020.
3) Mr. P. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondent authorities failed to follow the method provided in the
advertisement and rules, therefore the entire selection process
including merit list is bad in law and deserves to quashed.
4) On the other hand, Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-CGPSC submits that sufficient
application forms were not received therefore decision was taken to
conduct interview directly as per Clause 10 of the advertisement as
well as Rule 5.1 of the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014. He further
submits that petitioner participated in the recruitment process being
fully conversant with the procedure adopted by the examination
conducting body and only after being unsuccessful has preferred
this petition challenging the method of recruitment, therefore this
petition deserves to be dismissed.
5) Mr. Anil Pandey, learned State counsel would support the contention
made by Mr. Tiwari hereinabove.
6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
7) From perusal of documents annexed along with this petition, it
transpires that written examination was not conducted as sufficient
application forms were not received and respondent No. 2 selected
the candidates on the basis of marks obtained in interview but
petitioner did not challenge the process adopted by the respondents
during the course of recruitment and after completion of recruitment
process and publication of merit list, he has preferred this petition.
8) It is trite law that a candidate taking a calculated chance by
appearing in the examination after knowing fully well the procedural
norms and eligibility qualification and only because the result of
examination is not palatable to him, cannot turn around and
subsequently, question the method of examination. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court time and again in umpteen number of cases has laid
down the law in this regard. In the matter of Madal Lal Versus State
of Jammu and Kashmir1 in similar fact situation, the Supreme
Court has held that a candidate who consciously took part in the
process of selection cannot turn around finding the decision
unpalatable and question the method of selection. Relevant
paragraph 9 read as under :-
9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in
view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the
contesting successful candidates being concerned
respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light
of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to
be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no
dispute between the parties. The petitioners also
appeared at the oral interview conducted by the
concerned Members of the Commission who
interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned
contesting respondents. 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, that 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 Selection
Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of
Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and
Ors., (AIR 1986 SC 1043), it has been clearly laid
down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court
that when the petitioner appeared at the examination
without protest and when he found that he would not
succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging
the said examination, the High Court should not have
granted any relief to such a petitioner.
Aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Madal Lal
(supra) has been followed in the matters of Dhananjay Malik and
Others Versus State of Uttaranchal and Others2 and Madras
1. (1995) 3 SCC 486
2. (2008) 4 SCC 171
Institute of Development Studies and Another Versus Dr.
Sivasubramaniyam and Others. 3
9) In view of the discussion made herein above and the legal principles
established the Apex Court, no case is made out for interference.
Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No
cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Ajinkya
3. AIR 2015 SC 3643
