1)Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors on 20 August, 2015, CIVIL APPEAL No.6465 OF 20152)
2)Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585
3)Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486
4) Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla
5) Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576
6) Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309
20. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.
We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal’s case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him.
In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla1 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
23. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed:-
“We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection.
2)Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585
3)Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486
4) Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla
5) Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576
6) Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309
20. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.
We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal’s case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him.
In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla1 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
23. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed:-
“We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection.
Comments
Post a Comment