Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Rishma Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition (Oa) No. 4704 of 2019
Decided On : 31-08-2020
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Advocate, Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, Sumesh Raj, Advocate, Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, S.R. Chauhan, Advocate, Jagat Paul, Advocate
A person cannot challenge a selection process in which they participated without protest, and the constitution of the selection committee must adhere to prevailing instructions.
Headnote:
Selection Process - ASHA Workers - The court dismissed the petition challenging the selection process for ASHA Workers, emphasizing that a person cannot challenge a process in which they participated without protest and that the selection committee was constituted in accordance with the prevailing instructions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner participated in the selection process for ASHA Workers without protest but later filed a petition challenging the interview process and appointment of other candidates.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's challenge was not maintainable as they participated in the process without protest and failed to demonstrate any irregularity in the constitution of the selection committee.
Issues: Challenge to selection process without protest, constitution of selection committee
Ratio Decidendi: A person cannot challenge a process in which they participated without protest, and the constitution of the selection committee must be in accordance with prevailing instructions.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court, and pending miscellaneous applications were also dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the interview conducted on 27.09.2014 by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the post of ASHA Workers and consequently quashing the appointment of respondents No.5 and 6 as ASHA Workers, thereby directing respondents No.1 to 4 to offer the appointment to the petitioner as ASHA Worker and justice be done.
ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to produce the appointment letters issued in favour of respondents No.5 and 6 and place the same on record and thereafter quash the same as per relief No.1.
iii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 either to offer the appointment to the or in the alternative, the entire selection may kindly be quashed and set-aside, thereby directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to conduct interviews afresh strictly as per the notification dated 19.10.2013 and justice be done".
2. The case of the petitioner is that she participated in a process for the selection of ASHA Workers, which was undertaken by the Government in the year 2014. Her grievance is that in the interview which was conducted on 27.09.2014, by the Committee so constituted by the State Government, the marks which were granted to her were on the lower side as compared to private respondent and further, the Committee which was so constituted by the Department for the purpose of making the appointments in issue, was not in terms of the Notification dated 19.10.2013. It is on these grounds primarily that the appointment of the private respondent stands assailed by the petitioner.
3. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that there is no merit in the petition as the petitioner having participated in the process without any protest, was not having any locus to maintain the petition as such, more so as the marks which were allotted to the petitioner by the Selection Committee and other candidates, were on the basis of their performance before the Committee. He has also drawn the attention of the Court specifically to the averments as are contained in para-3 of the reply, on merit filed by respondents No.1 to 4, wherein it is specifically mentioned that after issuance of letter dated 19.10.2013, the Government had again notified the constitution of Committee, vide its Communication dated 04.04.2014 and the constitution of the Committee for the selection of ASHA Workers was strictly inconsonance with the instructions which were prevailing at the relevant time when the interviews took place.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record as well as documents appended with the pleadings.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the selection process without any protest and only after she was unsuccessful in getting appointment as ASHA Worker, she has filed this petition.
6. In view of the fact that it is settled law that a person cannot be permitted to assail a process in which he or she has participated without any protest, there is merit in the contention of learned Senior Additional Advocate General that present petition is not maintainable, as a person cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate in the same breath by assailing a process of selection in which he or she has participated without any protest.
7. Besides this, as it is not in dispute that the selection was undertaken by a Committee, which was so constituted strictly in terms of the instructions pertaining to the constitution of the Committee which were in vogue at the relevant time. Otherwise also, on merit there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that the constitution of the Committee was not inconsonance with the instructions of the Government as petitioner has failed to demonstrate
