Court dismissed writ petition challenging quashing of qualifying marks for judicial service interview. Held petitioner estopped after participating in interview without protest despite subsequent rule amendment fixing marks.
No relief granted; writ petition dismissed due to estoppel.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8863 of 2015
=========================================================== Rakesh Ranjan, aged about 33 Years, son of Shri Dinesh Prasad Das, Resident of : Goushala Chowk, P.O. & Police Station- Katihar, District - Katihar.
.... .... Petitioner
.... .... Respondents
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the High Court : Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate. For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI, ACJ
and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 12-05-2016
The petitioner has sought for quashing of Clause 3 of the Advertisement for interview, whereby the qualifying marks were fixed for interview in the midst of selection process.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8863 of 2015 dt. 12-05-2016
2 /10
Patna High Court CWJC No.8863 of 2015 dt. 12-05-2016
3 /10
qualifying marks in the interview ( viva voce test) would be 35 per cent . It is in pursuance of such advertisement that the petitioner appeared for interview, but has remained unsuccessful in the result published.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8863 of 2015 dt. 12-05-2016
4 /10
per cent marks as the minimum qualifying marks for viva voce . Once the petitioner was aware of such a condition, he is estopped to challenge such condition after appearing in the interview without any protest. The petitioner was a fence sitter, who took a chance for appearing in the interview, and, having remained unsuccessful, has, now, chosen to dispute the selection process.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8863 of 2015 dt. 12-05-2016
5 /10
appeared in the examination without protest. He filed petition after he had perhaps realized that he would not succeed in the examination. The Court held as follows:-
“24. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the district of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination.”
“9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called
Patna High Court CWJC No.8863 of 2015 dt. 12-05-2016
6 /10
for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. 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 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. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.”
and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others , (2008) 4 SCC 171 , the judgment reported in Madan Lal’s case (supra) was followed, when it was observed to the following effect:-
“7. It is not disputed that the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated
Patna High Court CWJC No.8863 of 2015 dt. 12-05-2016
7 /10
in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules.
8. In Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486 this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, 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 writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the 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.
9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.”
14. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and others,
(2010) 12 SCC 576 , the petitioner challenged the marks assigned for viva voce test. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to
Patna High Court CWJC No.8863 of 2015 dt. 12-05-2016
8 /10
challenge the criteria of the process of selection. It was held to the following effect:-
“16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner‟s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked 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 prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P.(2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal (2008)4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines (2009) 5 SCC 515.”
“14. The next submission which has been presented before us is that when the respondents had appeared in the interview knowing fully well the process, they could not
Patna High Court CWJC No.8863 of 2015 dt. 12-05-2016
9 /10
have resiled later on or taken a somersault saying that the procedure as adopted by the department was vitiated. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the principle stated in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285. In the said case a three-Judge Bench, taking note of the fact that the petitioner in the writ petition had appeared for the examination without protest and filed the petition only after he realised that he would not succeed in the examination, held that the writ petitioner should not have been granted any relief by the High Court.
15. In this context, we may quote a passage from Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486 with profit: (SCC p. 493, para 9)
“9. … It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the 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. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.”
16. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, the Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 149, para 34)
“34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8863 of 2015 dt. 12-05-2016
10 /10
contextual facts but the law seems 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.”
17. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100, the Court reiterated the principle that it is also well settled 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.
(Hemant Gupta, J)
I. A. Ansari, ACJ : I agree.
(I. A. Ansari, ACJ)
P.K.P. N.A.F.R.
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who participated in the interview process without protest can be estopped from challenging the fixing of minimum qualifying marks later.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to dispute the condition of obtaining minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test after appearing in the test.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and othersExplained¶37
1986 (Supp) SCC 285 · Who else cites this
Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and othersFollowed¶40
(1995) 3 SCC 486 · Who else cites this
Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and othersFollowed¶46
(2008) 4 SCC 171 · Who else cites this
Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and othersExplained¶55
(2010) 12 SCC 576 · Who else cites this
Ranjan Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and othersExplained¶60
(2014) 16 SCC 187 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Ranjan
State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar
Bihar Public Service Commission
Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission
High Court of Judicature at Patna through Registrar General
Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna
Hemant Gupta
I. A. Ansari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
