Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought to challenge the answer key of an earlier examination after participating in a subsequent recruitment drive as an age-barred candidate.
Writ petition dismissed with costs, as the petitioner abused the process of the court by delaying the challenge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1276/2014
( Farooq Shaikh s/o Md. Shaikh Vs. The Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust & another)
=-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Court's or Judges Order Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri M.S. Wakil, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Joshi, AGP for the respondent no.2.
C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.M. BADAR , JJ.
DATED : MARCH 17 , 2015.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to
the respondent no.1 to conduct a proper enquiry on the application of the petitioner dated 23.1.2013 and rectify the marks given to the petitioner in Paper-I and Paper-II of the examination held in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 22.2.2012.
An advertisement was issued by the respondent no.1 calling applications for appointment of candidates on various posts including the post of Civil Engineering Assistant. The petitioner applied for the post of Civil Engineering Assistant in the OBC category. As per the advertisement, a candidate was required to secure at least 45 marks in each of the two question papers posed by the respondent no.1 and was
2
required to secure 90 marks at the written examination. The petitioner admittedly secured 74 marks out of 200 marks and was not qualified for being selected. On 10.1.2013 a fresh advertisement was issued by the respondent no.1 inviting applications for appointment on various posts. The petitioner again applied for the post of Civil Engineering Assistant from OBC category, though the petitioner was age-barred. The petitioner secured nearly 130 marks in Paper-I and Paper-II of the examination and according to the petitioner, he is qualified for being considered for appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that the key answers to 40 questions were wrong in Paper-I and the key answers to 15 questions were wrong in Paper-II of the examination conducted in pursuance of the first advertisement issued on 22.2.2012. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner appeared for the examination in pursuance of the first advertisement, he was eligible but the answers mentioned in the answer keys were wrong and he was illegally declared failed in the written examination. It is stated that the petitioner was not eligible, being age-barred to appear for the examination conducted in pursuance of the second advertisement dated 10.1.2013, though he has secured more marks. By this petition, the petitioner is, therefore, seeking a re-checking of the answer-sheets in Paper-I and Paper-II of the examination held in pursuance of the first advertisement.
3
We find that the petitioner has abused the process of the Court by filing the instant petition. If the petitioner was dissatisfied with the wrongful valuation of the papers by the respondent no.1 in the examination conducted in pursuance of the first advertisement dated 22.2.2012, the petitioner could have challenged the action of the respondent no.1 at that time. The petitioner, however, did not challenge the issuance of the second advertisement on 10.1.2013. The petitioner applied in pursuance of the second advertisement, though the petitioner was age-barred. It is a well settled position of law that a candidate participating in the selection process, cannot challenge the selection process at a subsequent stage of the same. The petitioner had never challenged the issuance of the advertisement dated 10.1.2013 on the ground that an illegality was committed in the selection process conducted in pursuance of the first advertisement dated 22.2.2012. After having failed in the examination conducted
in pursuance of the first advertisement and after his candidature was rejected in pursuance of the second advertisement dated 10.1.2013, the petitioner being admittedly age-barred at that time, the petitioner has turned around and has challenged the alleged wrongful awarding of marks by the respondent no.1 in the examination conducted in
4
pursuance of the first advertisement. Such a course is not open to the petitioner.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with
costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Ambulkar .
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a candidate who participated in a subsequent selection process can challenge the merits of the earlier selection process when they failed to challenge it at that time.
Whether a petitioner can court abuse by initiating proceedings recently to rectify examination marks after having participated in a later recruitment drive.
If the petitioner, being age-barred for the second advertisement, has estopped him from challenging the invalidity of the first examination process.
Farooq Shaikh
The Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust
Vasanti A. Naik
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
