Nitya Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Ofverernary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate along with Mr. G.P.Mathur, Advocate For State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

15.06.2026

¶16

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :

¶17

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to re-conduct selection process as per terms of advertisement by awarding marks of interview within total marks of 30, in the interest of justice.

¶18

or

¶19

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to finalize the selection process by conducting written examination and interview both, in the interest of justice.

¶20

-2-

¶21

(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶22

The facts in brief are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 19.02.2020 issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner submitted her application form for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. She participated in the recruitment process and thereafter, a merit list was published on 30.12.2020. The petitioner has challenged the entire recruitment process including the method of awarding marks in interview by filing this petition.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the recruitment process was to be conducted in two steps : (i) written examination of 300 marks and (ii) interview of 30 marks. He would submit that later on, the game was changed and selection process was completed conducting interview only and therefore, the selection process is bad in law. He would pray to quash the entire selection process.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respondents would oppose submissions. They would submit that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and being unsuccessful, she filed this petition. They would further submit that as number of candidates were not sufficient, therefore, respondent No.2 decided to conduct interview only to complete selection process and this condition was specifically prescribed in para 10 of the advertisement. They would contend that the petitioner has filed this petition after completion of selection process but failed to implead the selected candidates, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be

¶25

3

¶26

dismissed.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶28

It is a well-settled principle of law that if a candidate participates in the selection process, he cannot be permitted to question the selection process subsequently as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anupal Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and others, reported in 2020(2) SCC 173, wherein, relevant paragraphs held as under :

¶29

“55.Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.

¶30

Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486 , it was held as under:-

¶31

“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

¶32

-4-

¶33

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. …..”

¶34

In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 395 , it was held as under:-

¶35

“73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper……..”.

¶36

In Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100, it was held as under:-

¶37

“19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127 , it was further observed:-

¶38

“34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, 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 there was some lacuna in the process.” Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others (2008) 4 SCC 619 wherein, it was held as under:-

¶39

“59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 10 0 ……The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285 , where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise……..”

¶40

Further, the petitioner has not impleaded the selected candidates though a list has been placed on record as Annexure P/2. The selection process was completed way back in the year 2020 and

¶41

5

¶42

no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶43

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anupal Singh (supra) , no case is made out for interference. Accordingly

¶44

this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶47

Rekha

Nitya Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitya Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Vs Ramdas Baghel

Shyam Ispat (India) Pvt. Ltd.Ltd. Vs Commissioner S G S T

Snehlata Gupta @ Babli Vs Hitesh Gupta @ Lucky Gupta

K. Sarika Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Madhu Satnami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Basant Kumar Ghritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh