IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP (S) No. 5521 of 2008
Deepak Kumar Shaw ....PETITIONER.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Programme Officer ,
Jharkhand Education Project, Dhanbad.
.. RESPONDENTS.
------
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.C.S. RAWAT.
-------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumir Prasad.
--------
2/07.11.2009
. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for seeking the following relief(s);
(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
merit list dated 1.11.2008 prepared by respondent No. 2 against the
terms and conditions published in advertisement for the post of
Block Programme Officer vide Advertisement letter No. 369/SSA
Dhanbad dated 12.5.07.
(b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding
upon the respondents to fill up the advertised post in accordance
with the terms and conditions given in the advertisement letter No.
369/SSA Dhanbad dated 125.07 and appoint the petitioner being a
genuine candidate who is fulfilling all the criteria as given in the
Advertisement Letter.
(c) For issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.
It is alleged in the petition that the respondents authority advertised
several posts including the post of Block Programme Officer on contract on
12th May, 2007. The petitioner, who was fulfilling all the criteria and
conditions, given in the Advertisement, applied for the post of Block
Programme Officer under the category of O.B.C.. The petitioner was issued
the Admit-card for appearing in the written examination, which was held on
22-6-2008. Thereafter, the merit list was prepared on 1.11.2008 on the basis
of the result of the written examination. The petitioner has further alleged
that the candidates for the Block Programme Officer were objecting the
procedure for the appointment of Block Programme Officer, as being
adopted by respondent No. 2. It has also been averred in the petition that the
candidates have raised objections for taking examination in English.
Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the petitioner
has appeared in examination and he has not objected during the course of
examination and when he was not selected, he has filed this writ application
challenging the said appointment. He is estopped from challenging the
examination process.
I heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of record, it reveals that no such document has been
filed, which shows that before appearing in the examination or the interview,
the petitioner has protested regarding the manner of selection. When the
merit list was prepared and the petitioner was not selected, he has made the
grievances before the Competent Authority and thereafter, he has filed this
writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fails to demonstrate me any such
document by which, any objection was raised before appearing in the
examination and the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain
news items, which can not be made the basis of the objection made by the
petitioner.
It is settled proposition of law that the candidate who had participated
in the interview with a knowledge for selection, and he had not secured
minimum pass mark and on being unsuccessful in the interview or
examination, could not turn around and challenged the said process of
examination on the ground that it was not proper or the Selection Committee
was not constituted as per provision and as such, the said challenge is liable
to be ignored on the ground of estoppel. The principle of law has been laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. the
State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. [1995(3) SCC 486], O.P. Sukla Vs.
Akhilesh Sukla [1986 (Suppl.) SCC 285], Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay
Municipal Corporation [1985(2) SCC 141] and recently reported in the
judgment of K.H. Siraj Vs. the High Court of Karnatka [2006(6) SCC
395].
In view of the above, this petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(J.C.S. Rawat, J.)
Anu/-