Bhavneet Singh vs University Of Delhi And Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6505 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    W.P.(C) 8545/2014 and CM APPL. 19721-19722/2014

                                                  Decided on : 05.12.2014

IN THE MATTER OF:
BHAVNEET SINGH                                           ..... Petitioner
                            Through: Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Advocate

                            versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS                      ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate for R1 Ms. Senjul Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for R-2/College .

CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

inter alia for directions to the respondent No.1/University and the

respondent No.2/College to consider appointing him to the post of

Administrative Officer of the respondent No.2/College, in terms of an

advertisement dated 13.09.2013. Further, the petitioner seeks

quashing/setting aside the decision to select the respondent No.3 to

the subject post.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to an

advertisement dated 13.09.2013 issued by the respondent

No.2/College, vacancies were notified to 11 posts including that of an

Administrative Officer and there was a note appended at the bottom

of the tabulated list of vacancies that out of the above posts, one post

would be reserved for a PWD(OH) candidate. He states that the

petitioner, who belongs to the PWD category, had applied for

appointment to the post of Administrative Officer. The selection

process comprised of two parts, a written test followed by an

interview. The petitioner had passed the written test and his name

was reflected in the Notice dated 02.05.2014 issued by the

respondent No.2/College. Thereafter, vide letter dated 10.09.2014,

he was called for an interview to the subject post. The petitioner's

interview was conducted on 08.10.2014. On 11.10.2014, a notice

was displayed by the respondent No.2/College declaring that the

respondent No.3 had been selected to the post of Administrative

Officer. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner has

approached this Court.

3. The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner

for challenging the appointment of the respondent No.3 to the subject

post is that he is not eligible for selection to the said post as the same

was reserved for persons with disability. However, the aforesaid

submission is not borne out from a perusal of the advertisement

dated 13.09.2013, wherein out of eleven posts, no specific post was

identified as having been reserved for persons with disability.

Instead, after giving the details of the posts and number of vacancies

etc. that the respondent No.2/College proposed to fill up, the only

note appearing at the bottom of the tabulated statement was that out

of the said posts, one post would be reserved for a PWD(OH)

candidate.

4. Next, learned counsel for the petitioner questions the selection

process adopted by the respondent No.2/College for making the

appointment to the post of a Administrative Officer and contends that

having failed to identify the post that the college proposed to reserve

for a PWD(OH) candidate, it could not have started the exercise of

conducting the written examinations and further, the pass marks

stipulated in the written test and the interview had not been specified.

5. On a pointed query addressed to the learned counsel for the

petitioner calling upon him to point out the averments made on the

said lines in the writ petition to back the oral submissions, he

concedes that there is no specific averment made in the petition for

laying a challenge to the selection process that was adopted by the

respondent No.2/College for appointment to the subject post. In such

circumstances, the Court is not inclined to permit the petitioner to

expand the scope of the petition by challenging the selection process

that was adopted by the respondent No.2/College. Even otherwise, it

is settled law that if a candidate participates in the selection process

without laying a challenge to the procedure adopted by the employer

at the first available opportunity, then after being declared as

unsuccessful in the results, he is barred from questioning the said

process at a later stage.

6. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal v. State of J&K, reported as

(1995) 3 SCC 486, wherein it was observed as below:-

"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. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 : 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." (emphasis added)

7. Similarly, in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar,

reported as (2010) 12 SCC 576, while deprecating the conduct of

the petitioner therein of challenging the process of selection after his

name did not appear in the merit list, the Supreme Court reiterated

the settled legal position, in the following manner:-

"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P.(2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines (2009) 5 SCC 515." (emphasis added)

8. Going further, the combined merit list of candidates enclosed as

Annexure P-13, divulges that there were 54 candidates in all, who had

applied for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer (UR)

under the external quota. The name of the petitioner features at

Sr.No.53 of the list. The name of the respondent No.3 who has been

declared as a successful candidate, features at Sr. No.8 and as per

the said results, he had obtained 197 marks out of a total of 300

marks in the written test and 132 marks out of 150 marks in the

interview, thus totaling to 329 marks out of 450 marks, whereas the

petitioner herein had obtained 148 marks out of 300 marks in the

written test and 27 marks out of 150 marks in the interview, totaling

to 175 marks out of 450 marks and resultantly, he was declared as

having failed. The combined merit list also discloses that all the other

candidates who had participated in the selection process had failed

except for the respondent No.3. In these circumstances, this Court

does not find any justification for interfering in the results declared by

the respondent No.2/College or for setting aside the selection process,

whereunder the respondent No.3 was declared as a successful

candidate and appointed to the post of Administrative Officer.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is found to be

devoid of merits and is dismissed in limine alongwith the pending

applications.

                                                      (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 05, 2014                                        JUDGE
rkb/sk