Unsuccessful candidates participating in selection process without protest cannot challenge criteria or outcome later under approbation-reprobation doctrine; experience must strictly relate to applied post for marks; no judicial interference absent mala fides.

JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioners, Dharmender Kumar and Suresh Kumar, have assailed the selection and appointment of Respondents No. 3 and 4 and have sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the impugned letter dated 20.09.2017, Annexure A-2, qua the respondents No. 3 and 4, wherein respondents No. 3 and 4 have wrongly been selected, may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set-aside.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX:

Grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners were working as Revenue Chowkidar as per Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6 for the last 5 years and 3 years respectively. It is averred that the Respondents issued a notification on 13.07.2017 [Annexure A-1] for filling up 178 posts of Part Time Workers in various Patwar Circles of District Hamirpur. It is averred that the petitioners have appeared in the interview on scheduled date but the respondents have wrongly selected Respondents No. 3 and 4, namely, Smt. Shashi Bala and Mr. Ajay Kumar, ignoring the fact that the petitioners were eligible and they possessed the experience certificate as Revenue Chowkidar vide Annexure A-5 and A-6. It is further averred that though the petitioners were eligible and nothing adverse existed yet the respondents have selected and appointed the private respondents No. 3 and 4, namely, Smt. Shashi Bala and Mr. Ajay Kumar, as Part Time Workers over and above the petitioners, which was alleged to be discriminatory, arbitrary, unconstitutional and also violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY:

Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the Respondents 1 and 2-State Authorities filed a Reply- Affidavit of Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur. In Para 3 and Para 6(i) to 6(iv) of Reply-Affidavit, the official respondents have stated that Respondents No 3 and 4 have been selected as Part Time Workers and not as Revenue Chowkidar as alleged by the petitioners. Reply-Affidavit indicates that Respondents No. 3 and 4 have been selected purely on the basis of merit of candidates determined by the Selection Committee constituted for selection of Part Time Workers. Reply-Affidavit indicates that selection has been made by the Selection Committee in terms of the criteria fixed by the State Government based on marks in matriculation and other parameters of selection in terms of the Government notification dated 17.04.2017 [Annexure R-1]. It is further averred in Reply-Affidavit that the petitioners participated in the selection process but they could not secure their position in the merit list vis-à-vis other candidates including the Respondents No. 3 and 4 who had virtue higher overall merit in terms of notification 17.04.2017 [Annexure R-1] and were selected and appointed. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the selection for the post of Part Time Worker has been made purely on the basis of merit as per marks secured in matriculation examination and other criteria prescribed in notification dated 17.04.2017 [Annexure R-1]. Allegations regarding violation of Articles 14 and 16, was specifically denied in Reply- Affidavit.

4. STAND OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IN REPLY:

Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the Private Respondents herein, being the selected/appointed candidates as Part Time Workers, have filed separate reply. In Reply-Affidavit an objection with respect to non-joinder of necessary parties has been taken. In Para 6 of Reply-Affidavit the private-respondents have taken a stand that the petitioners who are alleged to have worked as Revenue Chowkidar were not entitled for benefit of experience as Revenue Chowkidar in terms of notification dated 17.04.2017. In Para 8 of