The court upheld the principle that a candidate who takes a chance and participates in the interview cannot subsequently challenge the process, citing the settled position of law in Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.

V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated September 19, 2013, whereby the respondents 1 and 2 had prescribed minimum qualifying marks for Interview for Unreserved, Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category candidates as 50%, 45% and 40% respectively and final result dated November 06, 2013, whereby the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been appointed as Staff Car Driver (Ordinary Grade) against “OBC” vacancy and “Unreserved” vacancy.

2. An advertisement was issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for making appointment to various posts including three posts of Staff Car Driver (Ordinary Grade) in pay band of Rs. 5200-20,200 (PB-I) + Grade Pay of Rs. 2400, the break up being SC-1, OBC-1 and UR-1.

3. Mr. Anil Singal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice/order primarily on two grounds, the first one being, clause (6) of the advertisement, which relates to scheme of examination, contemplates that minimum qualifying marks for Written Examination/Personal Interview/Oration Test etc. shall be prescribed and made available on the website of Rajya Sabha before Written Examination is conducted. It is his submission that Written Examination for the Staff Car Driver (Ordinary Grade) was held in the month of June 2013, whereas the minimum qualifying marks for the Interview were fixed and notified on September 19, 2013, which is in violation of the advertisement. According to him, the Rules of selection could not have been prescribed after the process has been initiated/started.

4. His second submission was, Tej Pal-respondent No.3 even though an OBC candidate was the topper in the selection and necessarily had to be appointed against an “Unreserved” vacancy. In other words, it is his submission that if Tej Pal, respondent No.3 is appointed against an “Unreserved” vacancy, the petitioner being as an OBC candidate and being at serial No. 2 in the merit and having secured 45% on the basis of relaxed standards, would be appointed against the OBC vacancy. This would result in the cancellation of the appointment of respondent No. 4 Bhim Singh, who has been appointed against one “Unreserved” vacancy.

5. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, justified the impugned action. According to him, the minimum prescribed marks for the interview were declared before the date of interview which is in terms of the advertisement. According to him, the petitioner having taken a chance by appearing in the interview, cannot challenge the criteria of minimum qualifying marks having been prescribed before the interview and not before the written examination. He states that the interview letters which were sent to each of the candidates did prescribe the minimum qualifying marks for the interview. He states that if the petitioner had any grievance against prescribing of minimum qualifying marks before the interview and not before the written examination, he should have challenged the same then by not participating in the Interview. In any case, it is his submission that there are no allegations of mala fide for prescribing the minimum qualifying marks just before the Interview. According to him, the present petition is an afterthought by fence sitter who waited for the result of the selection process before challenging the same by way of this writ petition.

6. On the second submission of Mr. Singal, Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned Senior Counsel states that Tej Pal, the respondent No. 3 having availed the benefit of age relaxation so also the waiver of fee, even though, was topper in the selection, would still be appointed against an OBC vacancy and not “Unreserved” vacancy. This according to him, is in terms of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Baljit Singh Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and Ors., in CWP