The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person cannot challenge a selection process after participating in it without protest, as established by relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the selection of clerks by the respondents on the basis of an interview held on 02/05/1997 and to issue a writ of mandamus to prepare the merit list and appoint the Petitioner to the post of clerk/ typist as he his more meritorious.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was asked to appear for an interview on 02.05.1997, by the employment exchange, for two posts of Steno typist cum clerks. On the given date, 18 candidates appeared for the two abovementioned vacant posts. The counsel submits that no selection committee was constituted, neither any typist test was conducted, and further no written examination was held nor any certificates of the candidates were perused and no merit list was prepared, and only the names of the candidates, the father’s names and their residence addresses were asked.

3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two candidates were arbitrarily chosen for the said post, one of them being Jasbir Singh, who was allegedly a close relative of the Chairman, and the other being Paramjit Kaur, wife of Jarnail Singh, who was illegally selected with malafide intentions. He further pleads that though the Petitioner was higher in merit and possessed the qualifications of a steno-typist in Punjabi language, he was still not selected as opposed to the two selected candidates, who were lower in merit.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents’ states that the two posts were of only Clerk, for which no typist test or written test was required to be conducted. Furthermore, it is stated that a selection committee of five persons was duly constituted to take interviews of the 16 candidates who appeared on the said date. It is further categorically denied that only the names and addresses of candidates were asked, but a proper interview was conducted and marks were awarded to each candidate out of 20. The counsel further states that the petitioner scored 13 marks in the interview, whereas the two selected candidates scored the highest marks when the merit list was prepared. It is denied that there was any favouritism on the part of the respondents and that a fair procedure for recruitment was followed as per Rule 8 of Punjab Samitis and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1965.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the two selected candidates could not have been selected for the said post as they did not belong to the same jurisdiction where the Employment Exchange Moonak was located, and that they got their names registered so as to be eligible for the said post by hook or by crook. He submits that the Chairman of the Block Samiti got the two candidates selected by misusing his position and extended an undue favour to get his relatives selected, and thus the selection is not fair.

6. I have heard the arguments.

7. As per the advertisement dated 13/12/1996, it states that the post was of clerk and not of steno-typist-cum-clerk, and therefore, there was no requirement of a typist certificate nor was a typist test required to be conducted for the said posts. Further, no candidate was required to have a senior secondary certificate. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the selected candidates were not eligible for the said post stands no merit.

8. It is noticed that the petitioner alleged that there was no proper selection committee constituted and that no procedure was followed for selection of the candidates stands unsubstantiated, hence un-proved, as a fair procedure of selection was followed according to Rule 8 of the Punjab Samitis and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1965 and a proper interview was conducted and marks out of 20 were awarded to each candidate, after which the 2 meritorious candidates were selected for the said post.

“Rule 8

Method of recruitment and qu