Candidates participating in the selection process without objection are estopped from challenging the process later. Pleading of malafides is necessary for allegations of improper conduct.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

ALOK ARADHE, J. - These appeals arise out of a common order dated 20.09.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12907/2017 and in W.P.No.13427/2017 by which notification dated 17.03.2017, insofar as it relates to the appointment of respondents No.3 and 4 in the writ petitions as Assistant Surgeon (BDS) in KIDWAI Memorial Institute of Oncology (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute' for short) has been quashed. The institute has filed W.A.NO.6739/2017 and W.A.NO.6749/2017, whereas, respondent No.4 in the writ petition has filed W.A.No.6751/2017 and W.A.No.6/2018. The respondent No.3 in the writ petition has filed W.A.No.6499/2017. In all these appeals, a common issue i.e., Selection and appointment of the candidates namely respondent No.3 & 4 in Writ Petitions (Selected Candidates) on the post of Assistant Surgeon (BDS), is involved, therefore, the appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals in nutshell are that the Institute issued notification dated 06.07.2016 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Professor, Assistant Surgeons and Physicists. The aforesaid notification was published in newspapers on 07.07.2016. The eligibility criteria as well as the mode of selection was mentioned in the notification. The last date of submission of applications was 30.07.2016.

3. The writ petitioners as well as other candidates applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon (BDS). The applications submitted by the candidates were scrutinized and interviews were conducted by the selection committee on 18.10.2016. Thereafter, a provisional list was published on 29.11.2016. The writ petitioners submitted objections to the aforesaid provisional list on 05.12.2016 and 09.12.2016. The objections preferred by the writ petitioners were considered and thereafter, the final select list was published on 17.03.2017. The appellant in W.A.No.6499/2017 and in W.A.No.6751/2017 and in W.A.No.6/2018 were selected on the post of Assistant Surgeon (BDS).

4. The writ petitioners challenged the appointment of the selected candidates on the post of Assistant Surgeon (BDS) in W.P.No.12907/2017 and W.P.No.13427/2017 and sought for a writ of certiorari seeking quashment of the Final Select List vide notification dated 17.03.2017. The writ petitioners also sought a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representations / objections of the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge on perusal of the record of the selection by an order dated 20.09.2017 inter alia held that the constitution of the selection committee was not in accordance with Bye Law No.12 of the Bye Laws of the Institute. It was further held that the entire process, post notification is submerged in opacity and there is no clarity whether a meeting of the selection committee has been convened either prior or post 18.10.2016. It was also held that criteria for selection was changed after the commencement of the process of selection, which tantamounts to changing the Rules of the game and tweaking of the Rules / adoption of dual standards for the candidates for the same post, is a pre determined exercise in order to favour selected candidates.

5. The learned Single Judge further held that the entire exercise was orchestrated by the Director of the Institute with a malafide intention to ensure appointments of selected candidates. The learned Single Judge therefore, quashed the notification dated 17.03.2017 insofar as it pertains to selected candidates. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed.

6. Learned Senior counsel for the Institute submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that writ petitioners were not eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Surgeons (BDS) as they did not have ten years experience. It is further submitted that since, the writ petitioners were ineligible