Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohit Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 April, 2024
2024:PHHC:052118
125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-7795-2024
Date of Decision: 18.04.2024
ROHIT KUMAR ...Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. K.S. Gogia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Lalit Kumar Attri, Advocate
for the respondents-UOI.
*****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of result/selection process of
the Post of Staff Car Driver (Ordinary Grade).
2. The petitioner, pursuant to notification dated 23.07.2022 issued
by respondent-department, applied for the Post of Staff Car Driver (Ordinary
Grade). He was called for skill test on 21.06.2023. His name did not figure
in the final result dated 15.12.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent-
department did not declare the procedure and criteria of the recruitment
before conducting the exam/skill test. He further contends that the
respondent-department released a revised notification dated 28.12.2022
whereby vacancies were reduced.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
4. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents submit that
selection process stands completed. The criteria was duly disclosed in the
notification. The petitioner knowing all the parameters prescribed for the
selection, participated in the selection process and challenged the selection
of respondents after completion of selection process. It is a settled
proposition of law that a candidate cannot challenge selection process after
participating in the same. There is no allegation of mala fide intention
against the Selection Committee.
5. I have heard the arguments of both sides and with the able
assistance of learned counsel perused the record.
6. It is settled proposition of law that a candidate after
participating in the selection process cannot challenge criteria laid down in
the advertisement or the rules unless and until selection is made contrary to
statutory provisions or the advertisement itself.
A two Judge Bench of Apex Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and
Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC
344 has held that candidates, having taken part in the selection process
without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been
declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the
same time. A candidate cannot allege that selection process was unfair or
there was some lacuna in the process just because selection process was not
palatable to a candidate.
In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi , (2013) 11 SCC 309,
after referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and
estoppel, the Supreme Court did not entertain the challenge to the
authenticity of this order/judgment.
advertisement for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after
participating in the selection process. The relevant extracts of the judgment
read as:
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above
noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part
in the process of selection with full knowledge that the
recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the
respondents had waived their right to question the
advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for
making selection and the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by
entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
In Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2017) 4 SCC 357, the
Apex Court after referring to catena of judgments made an observation that
having participated in the selection process without objection, precludes the
candidate to challenge the process at a later stage.
In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, the
Apex Court held that it is well settled principle 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.
The Apex Court in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh,
(2008) 4 SCC 619 has noted that the only exception to the rule of waiver is
the existence of mala fide on the part of the Selection Board.
A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Karunesh Kumar and Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1706 has clearly held
that a candidate who has participated in the selection process is estopped and
cannot challenge the selection process.
The Apex Court in Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
AIR 1995 SC 1088 has held that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
participates in the selection process, he cannot challenge the selection
process on being found unsuccessful.
7. In the case in hand, the petitioner duly participated in the skill
test and interview. He failed to achieve the target. Having been unsuccessful,
he is assailing selection process. The case of the petitioner is squarely
covered by afore-cited judgments.
8. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that present petition deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
18.04.2024 JUDGE
himanshu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
