“One can’t question selection process after adverse result”
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, June 1: Stating that law doesn’t permit a person to both approbate and reprobate, a Division Bench of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh comprising Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal has held that a candidate cannot question the process of selection and call it unfair only because the result of selection process is not palatable to him after having participated in the selection process.
The Division Bench was dealing with intra-court appeal directed against the judgment and order passed by Single Judge on May 8, 2024 wherein the writ petition preferred by one Qurat-ul-Ain of Soura, Srinagar was dismissed and interim direction vacated.
The brief facts of the case are that father of the appellant served as Guard in SKIMS and died in harness on 3rd November 1995 and her mother brought her up single-handedly and rendered around 18 years of long service in SKIMS against Class-IV – Attendant post.
In the year 2017 applications were invited by SKIMS for filling up various posts including Medical Technologist. The appellant, being fully eligible, applied for the same. She participated in the written test and in the result she was shown to have secured 47 marks out of total 100 marks. It was specific case of the appellant that the answer papers of all the candidates were snatched five minutes ahead of the scheduled time as a result she could not secure 50 qualifying marks.
Feeling aggrieved of the act of respondents, the appellant approached the High Court and Single Judge, while issuing notice to the other side issued directions to the respondents to conduct interview of the appellant and produce the result before the court.
On December 9, 2020, the counsel for the appellant submitted before the court that she secured 7th position in the merit of viva-voce and out of advertised 20 posts, only 15 candidates were available. Moreover, there was no need of conducting any written test in terms of the rules. On the basis of these submissions, Single Judge issued directions for appointment of appellant.
Aggrieved of this order, SKIMS approached the Division Bench, which set-aside the interim order of Single Judge with the direction to decide the case in accordance with law. Finally, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and against this the appellant knocked the doors of the Division Bench.
After hearing both the sides, the DB comprising Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “the primary ground, which has been urged in the appeal by the appellant before this court is that the respondents were under legal obligation to have appointed the appellant/writ petitioner straightaway in the order of merit without conducting the written test and interview”.
“The contention of the appellant is misplaced and has no foundation, more particularly, when the writ petitioner/appellant has gladly and voluntarily participated in the selection process and appeared in the written test without any grouse and after having appeared in the written test, the appellant/writ petitioner is estopped under law to question the same, at this belated stage when the appellant/writ petitioner could not make the grade”, the DB said.
Referring several judgments of the Apex Court, the DB said, “a candidate cannot question the process of selection and call it unfair only because the result of selection process is not palatable to him after having participated in the selection process”, adding “appellant/writ petitioner wants to be selected/ appointed notwithstanding the criteria prescribed for selection in question by respondents having acquiesced her right, when she responded to advertisement notice and participated in selection process. Such a selective adoption is not permissible under law, as no party can be allowed to approbate or reprobate”.
“Keeping in view the settled legal position, we do not find any legal infirmity with the judgment passed by the Single Judge as the same is well reasoned judgment dealing the issues raised in the petition, elaborately”, the DB said while dismissing the appeal.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
