One can’t question selection procedure on being unable to clear it: HC
Srinagar: J&K High Court has held that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure are not entitled to question it upon being declared unsuccessful.
Justices Rajesh Sekhri and Tashi Rabstan while allowing an appeal by the UT administration against a single bench order held that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared unsuccessful.
The bench followed the apex court verdict which said that such candidates would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the procedure of selection.
The facts-in-brief are that an advertisement notice dated 03.07.2007 was issued by the J&K Service Selection Board (SSB) for certain posts of draftsman civil, Public Works Department.
One Bharat Vijay from Jammu also applied for the post. The prescribed criterion for selection was 70 marks for qualification and 30 marks for interview.
Vijay obtained 48.22 marks for his qualification and 5.67 marks in viva voce.
The select-list was published in August 2007 and 34 candidates were selected under the open merit category, however, Vijay was not selected.
He was informed that the selected candidates were given marks in the range of 19.33 to 29 in the interview.
He filed a writ petition seeking to quash the select-list and also prayed for his appointment with all consequential benefits.
A single judge bench in 2016 directed the SSB to hold a fresh interview of the petitioner and thereafter to take a decision with regard to selection of the petitioner on the post in question.
It further directed that in case the petitioner Vijay is found entitled for selection, he shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits.
The SSB and the PWD filed an appeal against the judgment. A division bench in 2019 directed the JSSB to provide certain information which revealed that there were other candidates too who could not be selected but were given 48 or more points in the basic qualification.
The court opined “it would be wrong to allege that the selection committee was biased towards the writ petitioner in accordance with less marks in viva voce. Further, it would be unfair and unjust if only the writ petitioner is allowed for fresh interview leaving out other candidates who were having more points in the basic qualification than the writ petitioner.”
It said the select-list was issued in 2007, adding “now about sixteen years are going to elapse and certainly the new members have taken over the board. Therefore, at this stage it would not be in the fitness of things to allow the writ petitioner for fresh interview.”
It, accordingly, allowed the appeal and set aside the single Judge verdict.