Candidates cannot challenge the selection process after willingly participating in it, and the rules in force at the time of the advertisement govern the selection process unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. K. Upadhayaya, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, learned Additional Advocate General, Sikkim appearing for respondents no. 1 & 2 and Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.3 to 51.

2. The respondent no.2 published an advertisement dated 22.08.2017, inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 233 numbers of posts, out of which 34 posts were earmarked for Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT) language, 31 posts for Graduate Teacher (GT) language and 168 posts for Primary Teacher (PT) in different languages. The qualification prescribed in PGT, as prescribed in the advertisement, was Master degree from a recognized university with minimum of 50% marks (45% for reserved category) and concerned language as Elective/MIL/Honours in Secondary, Senior Secondary and Graduation level. 34 posts of PGT were again divided into three categories – PGT in Bhutia Language, PGT in Lepcha Language and PGT in Limboo Language. 8, 13, 13 posts were earmarked for PGT in Bhutia Language, PGT in Lepcha Language and PGT in Limboo Language, respectively.

3. The petitioners, being eligible, applied for PGT in different languages. Petitioners no.1 to 17 applied for PGT in Bhutia Language, petitioners no. 18 to 24 had applied for PGT in Lepcha Language and petitioners no.25 to 42 (wrongly written as 43 as there are only 42 writ petitioners) had applied for PGT in Limboo Language. They were issued admit cards and they had also taken the written examination held on 04.11.2018. A merit list of candidates qualifying in written examination was published, which included names of the petitioners. They were also called for viva-voce.

4. Petitioners no.1 to 17 appeared for viva-voce on 28.11.2018, petitioners no.18 to 24 on 29.11.2018 and petitioners no.25 to 42 on 30.11.2018. All of them also gave class-room demonstration. The final merit list for the selected candidates in respect of PGT Language was published on 06.02.2019, wherein the petitioners had not come out successful.

5. The Writ Petition was filed on 18.04.2019 with defects and the same was re-submitted on 10.06.2019.

6. The grievance articulated in the Writ Petition is that the questions for the written examination were not based on the syllabus provided by the respondent no.2 and that in view of a Notification dated 03.04.2018, recruitment to the post of PGT Language should have been made by way of direct recruitment through written examination to the extent of 70% and balance 30% by promotion through written examination and viva-voce. It is stated that they had raised objection in the examination hall itself and had appeared in the written examination without prejudice to their rights. Though rules of examination visualized maximum marks of 25 each in the subjects of General Knowledge and General English with duration of 40 minutes for each subject, questions were set for 100 marks in total and duration of examination was increased to three hours from the earlier allotted duration of 1 hour 20 minutes and such change came to be known to the petitioners only in the examination hall. It is also pleaded that candidates having Master degree in general subjects were given first preference and that candidates having Master degree in concerned subject/language were not given preference. The petitioners had raised grievances before the authorities, but to no avail. They prayed for setting aside advertisement dated 22.08.2017, cancelling the entire selection process for the PGT Language as well as the selection of respondents no.3 to 51 and directing the respondents no.1 and 2 to start a fresh selection process in terms of Notification dated 03.04.2018 after re-advertising the posts.

7. The respondent no.1 had filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners had taken part in the entire selection process without any protest and/or objection and, therefore, they are estopped from challenging the selection process af