Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Smt. Mousumi Denath, wife of Sri Sudip Banerjee - Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India - Respondents
WP(C). No. 335 of 2015
Decided on : 25-04-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A. Bhowmik, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. P.Dutta, Advocate, Mr. D.K. Biswas, Advocate, Mr. G.K. Nama, Advocate, Mr. T. Debbarma, Advocate
A candidate who participates in the selection process without protest cannot later challenge the process if the outcome is unfavorable.
Headnote:
Selection Process - Nurse Post - Tripura University Cadre Recruitment Rules (Non-Teaching Employees) 2011 - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the selection process for the Nurse post at Tripura University. The petitioner participated in the process without protest and cannot challenge the process after the outcome was unfavorable. The court noted that the selection process was followed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and upheld the selection of the respondents No. 4 and 5.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the selection of respondents No. 4 & 5 for the Nurse post at Tripura University, alleging unfair selection process and bias. The petitioner participated in the written test and interview but was not selected. The respondents No. 2 and 3 followed the selection process as per the Recruitment Rules and denied any unfair means.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's challenge to the selection process was not sustainable as she participated in the process without protest and cannot challenge the outcome. The court upheld the selection of the respondents No. 4 and 5 for the Nurse post at Tripura University.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could challenge the selection process after participating in it without protest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a candidate who participates in the selection process without protest cannot later challenge the process if the outcome is unfavorable. The court also noted that the selection process was followed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the selection process and upheld the selection of the respondents No. 4 and 5 for the Nurse post at Tripura University.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the selection of the respondents No. 4 & 5 in the post of Nurse under Tripura University pursuant to the Advertisement. No. TE/03/2013 dated 02.09.2013, AnnexureP5 to the writ petition and urged for direction on the Tripura University respondents to cancel their appointment. There is no dispute that by the said advertisement dated 02.09.2013 applications were invited from the eligible candidates for filling up two vacant posts (UR) of Nurse in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800/with the Grade Pay Rs. 4200/for the Tripura University. The essential qualifications for the said post have been provided in the advertisement as under:
Sl.12.
Nurse, PB2, Rs. 9,200/34,800 +GP Rs. 4200/, Age limits: 35 years
2
2UR
(i) Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery or equivalent or B.Sc. Nursing from a recognize university/institution.
(ii) Registered as Nurse in a State Nursing Council Register.
2. As the petitioner found herself eligible in terms of the advertisement dated 02.09.2013, she applied for the said post. She has acceded to the fact that she had participated in the ‘Written Test along with other candidates on 13.12.2014’. The result of the written test was published by the notification dated 10.03.2015, Annexure P/6 to the writ petition. In the said notification dated 10.03.2015, the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 1, whereas the names of the respondents No. 4 & 5 respectively appear at Sl. No. 4 and 16 of the said notification. On the basis of the result of the written test, the petitioner was asked to appear on 10.04.2015 for interview by the same notification dated 10.03.2015. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the viva voce but by the said process, the respondents No. 4 and 5 were finally selected for the post of Nurse.
3. The petitioner in that perspective has averred that the respondent No. 3 in collusion with the respondents No. 4 and 5 deprived the petitioner by selecting the respondents No. 4 and 5 in the post of nurse unfairly.
“On the basis of marks in the vivavoce the petitioner cannot be deprived in selection and the respondents No. 4 & 5 cannot be selected basing in the marks of viva voce. The process of selection should not have been made on the basis of oral interviews in such a manner that the person who secured the 1st position in the written examinations deprived and the person who secured interior position in the written test in selected. The State Respondents have taken illegal and wrong process to select the Respondents No. 4 & 5 who are men of their liking, no undue favour can be given to the Respondents No. 4 and 5 taking the marks of oral test with a view to deprive the petitioner who has done outstanding result in the process of selection on the basis of written interview. In the case in hand bias, mala fide and arbitrariness has been shown the Respondents No. 4 & 5. And hence the appointment letter issued In favour of respondents No. 4 & 5 is liable to be quashed”.
4. The petitioner has also averred that the petitioners academic career is far more illustrious than that of the respondents No. 4 and 5, as according to the petitioner, the respondents No. 4 and 5 do not have the Master degree. In the paragraph 16 of the writ petition, the petitioner has raised the grounds of objections in respect of the mode of selection. According to her the process of selection should not have been made on the basis of the oral interview inasmuch as, by the outcome of the said oral interview, the person like the petitioner who secured the top position in the written test has been discarded. It is a clear example of undue favour to the respondents No. 4 and 5. Thus, the entire selecti
