High Court · 2012

It is also alleged in the writ petition that in the interview he was asked only three questions and petitioner very quickly replied. Surprisingl y in the final list i.e. Final List of selected candidates published on 20.12.20 09 name of the petitioner was not included. [5] In the writ petition, petitioner further alleged that since he p erformed very well in the written test as well as physical test and the viva voc e test he had the great expectation that his name should be included in the fina l list of selected candidates. It is also further alleged that while publishing the final list, there was no indication as to who had been recommended for the r eserved category. On the basis of the said speculation, petitioner filed the pre sent writ petition challenging the list of the selected candidates and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to produce the answer scripts of all t he eight selected candidates for reserved category of SC and also for quashing t he select list for appointment of SI (AB) in the reserved category i.e. SC candi dates. [6] Respondents filed joint affidavit wherein the respondents made c ategorical statement that the Selection Board simply recorded the timing in the case of 1 Km race and 100 M sprint and distance and height in the case of long j ump and high jump. The petitioner, who had qualified in all the events, was call ed for personal interview. It is further stated that performance of all the cand idates in the physical test was not recorded as 1st 2nd and 3rd positions respec tively. In the joint affidavit, respondents also annexed copy of the list of qua lified candidates for appointment to the said eight reserved posts for SC. [7] Considering the serious allegations made by the present petition er, this court passed an order dated 23.03.2011 in Misc Case No.367/2011 filed i n the present writ petition directing the respondents to produce the relevant re cords including answer script of the present petitioner and also those of the ei ght selected candidates for reserved category, i.e. SC. In pursuance of the dire ction of this Court, learned GA appearing for the respondents produced the answe r script of the petitioner and also the answer scripts of the eight selected can didates for reserved category for SC before this court. [8] Mr.Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously conten ded that there are some manipulations in the answer scripts of the selected cand idates and also marks obtained by the selected candidates had been over-written. Keeping in view of the serious allegations made by the petitioner in the presen t writ petition as well as the submission of Mr.Saikia, this court has carefully perused the answer scripts produced by the learned State counsel. On such perus al, it is clear that the answer scripts were first evaluated by the evaluators a nd also scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee; and also that the serious allegat ions made by the petitioner have no stand inasmuch as there is no over-writing o f marks obtained by the selected candidates save and except one answer script of the 1st paper. On careful perusal of the said answer script it appears that the re was a mistake in summing up the total marks obtained by the said candidate in different questions. The said mistake in summing up total marks had been correc ted by the Scrutiny Committee. This court also further made scrutiny as to whether the total ma rks awarded by the Scrutiny Committee is correct or not by looking into the mark s obtained by the said candidate in different questions. On such scrutiny, it ap pears that total marks obtained by the said candidate, according to the Scrutiny Committee, is correct. [9] From the above factual backdrop, more particularly, pleadings of the present petitioner as well as the submission of learned counsel for the pet itioner, it appears that the present petition had been filed by the petitioner o n mere speculative foundations and premises to make roving inquiry as to whether there were some mistakes committed by the Selection Committee in selecting the candidates for the reserved category, i.e. SC candidates. It is well settled tha t the writ petition filed on mere speculation for roving inquiry should not be e ntertained. For this settled position of law, it is not required to refer to the catena of decisions, it would be suffice to refer to (1) Commissioner, Bangalor e Development Authority Vs S.Vasudeva & Ors: (2000) 2 SCC 439 (para 6); and (2) Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State of W.B.:(2004) 3 SCC 349 wherein and whereunder the Apex Court held that: Coming to the facts of the case, it has not been shown as to how and in (cid:28)17. what manner the accused condemned prisoner is handicapped in not seeking relief, if any, as available in law. The mater pertains to something which happened or not at Kolkata and what the truth about the news was or cause for the delay, eve n if it be, is not known or ascertained or even attempted to be ascertained by t he petitioner before approaching this Court. To a pointed query, the petitioner submitted that the petitioner (cid:28)may not be aware (cid:29) of his rights, that except the news he heard he could not say any further and (cid:28)the respondent State may come an d clarify the position (cid:29). This petition cannot be entertained on such speculative foundations and premises and to make a roving enquiry. Maybe, at times even on certain unconfirmed news but depending upon the gravity or heinous nature of the crime alleged to be perpetrated which would prove to be obnoxious to the avowed public policy, morals and greater societal interests involved, courts have vent ured to intervene but we are not satisfied that this could be one such case, on the facts disclosed. It is reliably learnt that a petition with almost identical prayers was filed before the Calcutta High Court by relatives of the accused an d the same has recently been dismissed by the High Court. (cid:29) [10] It is also equally well settled that candidates who had taken ch ance by appearing themselves in the selection test but not successful in the tes t, cannot go around and challenge the selection test. In the present case, as st ated above, petitioner had already appeared before the selection committee and h e filed writ petition only when he was not selected, alleging serious allegation s which are only mere conjectures. For this settled law, it would be suffice to refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in Madan Lal & Ors Vs State of J & K an d Ors: (1995) 3 SCC 486, Om Prakash Shukla Vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors: 1986 (Supp) SCC 285 and K.H.Siraj Vs High Court of Kerala & Ors: (2006) 6 SCC 395. [11] d as follows: The Apex Court in Madan Lal’s case supra (para 9 of the SCC) hel Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fa (cid:28)9. ct that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being re spondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtain ed in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to th is 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 i nterviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral inter view. 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, th ey 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 co ntend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was no t 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 Ju dges 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 pe tition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. (cid:29) [12] a) that: The Apex Court also reiterated in Om Prakash Shukla’s case (supr (cid:28)24. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petiti on should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realized that h e 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 wou ld cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick s hould have been applied to the candidates in the district of Kanpur also. They w ere not responsible for the conduct of the examination. [13] In K.H.Siraj’s case (supra) the Apex Court held as follows: (cid:28)73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview i n this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round the reafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provisions of a m inimum mark for the interview was not proper. It was also held by this Court in para 9 of Madan Lal v State of J & K : (1995) 3 SCC 486 as under: (SCC p.493) Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fa (cid:28)9. ct that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being re spondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtain ed in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to th is 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 i nterviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral inter view. 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, th ey 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 co ntend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was no t 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 Ju dges 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 pe tition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. (cid:29) Therefore, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioners should b 74. e dismissed on the ground of estoppel is correct in view of the above ruling of this Court. The decision of the High Court holding to the contrary is perincuria m without reference to the aforesaid decisions. (cid:29) this writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly dismissed. For the foregoing reasons this court is of considered view that