Candidates who participate in a selection process without objection cannot challenge the result based on ineligibility post-selection.

JUDGMENT :

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

1. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7891 of 2014, aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by order dated 08.02.2018, has filed the present writ appeal.

2. W.P.(MD)No.7891 of 2014 had been filed in the naure of the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, seeking the records relating to the notices issued by the second respondent, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Thanjavur District, in proceedings TNSTC/KUM/HRD/800/13 dated 31.10.2013 and 20.11.2013, and to quash the same insofar as they relate to the non-selection of the appellant/petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Thanjavur District.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was contended that the appellant/writ petitioner is a Diploma Holder in Mechanical Engineering. His name had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee) in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam. He participated in the selection process; however, he was not informed about the result. Consequently, he filed W.P.(MD)No.17247 of 2013, pursuant to which the respondents were directed to publish the results. The results were subsequently published, and the appellant/writ petitioner found that he had not been selected. He therefore filed the present writ petition challenging the notification issued for the selection process and impleaded the selected candidates as respondents 4 to 10.

4. A counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent, stating that the Employment Exchange, Sivagangai, had been requested to sponsor candidates for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee). A list of 24 persons was received from the Employment Exchange, and all of them, including the appellant/writ petitioner, were called for the interview.

5. However, only 16 candidates attended the interview. It was contended that, after following the due selection process, the Selection Committee selected seven candidates, in accordance with the procedures, rules, and regulations governing the selection.

6. It was further contended that the appellant/writ petitioner did not fulfil the requisite conditions for selection and was, therefore, not selected by the Selection Committee. The recruitment was carried out based on the existing procedure. It was therefore contended that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

7. Thereafter, the appellant / writ petitioner filed a further affidavit, expanding the scope of the Writ Petition by contending that the selection should have been restricted only to candidates from Sivagangai District, but however, candidates from Ramanathapuram and Pudukottai Districts had also been sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, and those who were ultimately selected belonged to those Districts. It was therefore contended that the selection process ought to be revisited and set aside by this Court.

8. The learned Single Judge, while examining the credentials of the appellant/writ petitioner, observed that since the appellant/writ petitioner had participated in the selection process, he could not be permitted to challenge it. It was also stated that the respondents had duly considered the candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner and found that there were more meritorious candidates, who were accordingly selected. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition.

9. In this Writ Appeal, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge and contended that the selected candidates hailed from Districts