Madras High Court
C.S.Supriya vs The Director Of Technical Education on 5 December, 2023
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).No.26597 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 29.11.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 05 .12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.26597 of 2023
and W.M.P(MD).Nos.22889 &22890 of 2023
C.S.Supriya ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director of Technical Education
Guindy, Chennai
2.The Principal
Sankar Polytechnic College
Sankar Nagar
Tuticorin District 627 357 ...Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned Notification
dated 04.07.2023 pertaining to recruitment process to the post of Lecturer
(English) and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R1 : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P(MD).No.26597 of 2023
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by an aspirant to the post of
Lecturer (English) challenging the recruitment notification issued by the
second respondent Polytechnic College.
2.According to the writ petitioner, the second respondent college has
issued a Recruitment Notification on 04.07.2023 by way of newspaper
publication. She had applied for the same and she received a call letter in the
first week of August 2023 instructing her to appear for the written
examination/interview to be conducted on 08.08.2023.
3.The petitioner contends that there was no reference about the written
examination or the mode of selection in the said advertisement. It is the
further contention of the writ petitioner that she was provided with a question
paper and an OMR sheet and she was instructed to shade in the OMR sheet in
pencil. After completion of the examination she was not permitted to take the
question paper and not permitted to attest the OMR sheet.
4.The second respondent college has not published the selection list
and therefore, it has created huge apprehension in her mind that the selection
process is suspicious right from the inception. Hence, she had prayed for
quashing of the Notification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The second respondent College has filed a counter contended that
before publication of the recruitment Notification, it was placed before the
Directorate of Technical Education (DOTE) and only after obtaining
approval, the same was published in the newspaper. Since 2836 candidates
had applied for 23 vacancies, they had decided to conduct a screening test to
short list the candidates in the ratio of 1:5 for each vacancy by conducting a
written examination.
6.The learned counsel had further contended that the entire selection
process was done by Staff Selection Committee comprising of one
Directorate of Technical Education (DOTE) nominee, two subject experts and
one SC nominee, one management representative and the principal of the
College. Therefore, out of six members of the selection committee, four were
appointed by DOTE and the management was represented only by two.
Therefore, the allegation that the selection was made for extraneous reason is
not correct.
7.The learned counsel for the second respondent had further contended
the management had received potential question papers for each of the
subjects in a sealed cover and the same was opened by the Selection
Committee headed by DOTE nominee. Therefore, the allegations of the
petitioner are baseless.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.The learned counsel had further contended that after the written
examination, the selection list was published in the notice board and the
interview was conducted for the selected candidates by the Selection
Committee. The list of selected candidates has been forwarded to DOTE and
the approval is pending.
9.He had further contended that in the OMR sheet, it has been
specifically pointed out that the candidates have shade only in ink and
therefore, the contention of the petitioner that she was asked to shade in the
pencil is not correct. The learned counsel had further contended that the
petitioner had participated in the selection process and thereafter, having not
selected, is not entitled to challenge the Recruitment Notification.
10.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
11.The Recruitment Notification relating to appointment of 23
candidates in 8 departments of the second respondent Polytechnic College
has been published in the newspaper on 04.07.2023. The petitioner had
applied for English Lecturer post advertised in the said Notification.
Admittedly, the petitioner has received a call letter indicating about the
written examination in the first week of August 2023 informing that the said
examination would be conducted on 08.08.2023. Before the examination, the
petitioner has not chosen to challenge the Notification or power of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Polytechnic College to conduct the written examination.
12.A perusal of the typed set of papers filed by the respondent indicates
that the Notification under challenge was drafted by the College and placed
before DOTE for its approval on 14.06.2023. By communication dated
03.07.2023, the draft advertisement has been approved by DOTE. A perusal
of the impugned Notification discloses that what has been approved by
DOTE has been advertised.
13.A perusal of the communication of DOTE dated 05.08.2023 to the
second respondent College indicates that the subject experts and the DOTE
nominee has been selected by DOTE and informed to the College. Out of six
members of the Selection Committee, four were nominated by DOTE and two
of them were the member of the management representative. Therefore, it is
clear that the DOTE nominees were in majority in the Selection Committee.
14.For 23 candidates more than 2836 applications have been received
and therefore, it may not be possible to conduct interview for all of them. For
short listing the candidates in the ratio of 1:5, the College had decided to
conduct a written examination. This cannot be found fault with. The
candidates selected in the ratio of 1:5 have been interviewed by the Selection
Committee. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Selection Committee
appointed by DOTE had approved the manner of conduct of the written
examination.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15.The petitioner has alleged that he was instructed to shade the
answers in pencil instead of pen and she was not permitted to take question
papers. Though the written examination was conducted on 08.08.2023, till
filing of writ petition on 02.11.2023, no complaint has been lodged by the
writ petitioner either to college management or to DOTE alleging
non-transparency in conduct of examination or the selection process.
Therefore, this Court is not in a position to agree with the allegation made on
the side of the writ petitioner which has been raised for the first time in the
writ petition. Along with the typed set of papers, the second respondent
College has produced the question paper.
16.The Selection Committee has forwarded their names to DOTE for
their approval and the same is pending. Therefore, it is clear that the entire
selection process right from the advertisement has been monitored,
supervised and conducted by DOTE and its nominees.
17.The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the selection process in
the writ petition and the petitioner has challenged only the Recruitment
Notification dated 04.07.2023. It is settled position of law that having
participated in the selection process and failed and thereafter, the candidate
cannot turn around and challenge the Recruitment Notification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (1995) 3
SCC 486 (Madan Lal Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others) was
pleased to hold that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at
the interview, then, only because of the interview is not palatable to him, he
cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview
was unfair and the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576
( Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar) was pleased to hold that a
candidate is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection after
having taken part in the said process of selection. If a candidate invokes a
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, the said
conduct disentitle him from questioning the selection.
19.In view of the above said deliberation, there are no merits in the
writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.12.2023
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Director of Technical Education
Guindy, Chennai
2.The Principal
Sankar Polytechnic College
Sankar Nagar
Tuticorin District 627 357
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
and W.M.P(MD).Nos.22889 &22890 of 2023
05.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
