Amit Dagar & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 989 Del

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                          WRIT PETITION(C) NO.7362 of 2009


                                      Date of Decision : 18th February, 2011


        AMIT DAGAR & ORS.                                 ..... Petitioner
                 Through            Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Advocate


                          versus


        UOI & ORS.                                           .....Respondents
             Through           Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate


        CORAM:

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA


1.      Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
        judgment? Yes


2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes


3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

1. The only ground of challenge in the matter is that pursuant

to the order passed on 30.04.2007 by the Division Bench of this Court

in W.P.(C) No. 19688-92/2004 and other connected matters, the

petitioners were invited to participate in a typing test which was held

on manual typewriters, whereas, according to the petitioners, some

individuals were given the facility of giving their test on computer.

The petitioners contend that, under the circumstances, the same

opportunity should have been made available to them also.

2. Admittedly, one of the terms of the aforesaid order of

30.04.2007 passed by the Division Bench, which was a consent order,

was that the petitioners would be obliged to undertake a typing test.

Pursuant to that, it is also admitted that along with other candidates,

the petitioners were also called for a typing test and they were asked

to bring their own typewriters. Obviously, therefore, the petitioners

were well aware that they would be required to use a typewriter for

the test. Having known that, the petitioners brought their own

typewriters and sat for the test. In other words, they approbated the

structure and system adopted by the respondents for conducting the

test. It is only when they found themselves unsuccessful, they seek to

challenge the decision to conduct the test by way of a manual

typewriter.

3. Having already taken a chance and failed, it is not open to

the petitioners to now seek to impugn this aspect of the test and ask

for a fresh test to be conducted on a computer. Having participated

with their eyes open in the test, it is now not open to them to disavow

the same merely because they have not been successful.

4. The petitioners‟ contentions that some individuals were

permitted to take the test in question on a computer is denied by

counsel for the respondent who clarifies that when the test in question

was held, after due notice, all the candidates who took that test used a

manual typewriter only.

5. The only thing is that two or three candidates were

exempted from taking this test in terms of the compromise order of

30.04.2007 on the ground that they had already qualified in a typing

test held much before the termination in question was impugned

before the Division bench and which led to the consent order of

30.04.2007. At that point in time, the test taken by those individuals

was on a computer. Be that as it may, to my mind, looking to the fact

that admittedly, the same method was applied to all who were

permitted to take the test with the petitioners, and the fact that the

petitioners consciously approbated the methodology adopted for

conducting this test and also duly participated in the same without

reservation, this objection has no force and must be rejected.

6. The proposition that no relief can be granted to a petitioner

who has participated in the examination with open eyes and with

complete knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, and then

chooses to file a petition once he realizes that he has not been selected

in the examination, has been reiterated repeatedly by the Supreme

Court , inter alia, in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar

Shukla and others 1986(Supp) Supreme Court Cases 285 para 24;

and again in Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others Vs. Shakuntala

Shukla and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 2322 wherein it is stated as follows:

"The law seems 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."

This proposition has been further reiterated in Union of

India and others Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8

Supreme Court Cases 100 para 18, which states as follows:

"It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same."

7. The same ratio applies with full force to the facts of the

present case.

8. No other grounds are raised.

9. The writ petition is dismissed.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

FEBRUARY 18, 2011 rd