9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 896 - SC - Indian LawsAdvertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education as published in the newspaper Amar Ujala - recruitment to the post of Physiotherapist - Held that - Having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents. We are also prima facie of the view that the learned Single Judge committed an error by holding that despite the non obstante clause contained in Rule 2 of the General Rules the Special Rules would govern recruitment to the post of Physiotherapist. However we do not consider it necessary to express any conclusive opinion on this issue and leave the question to be decided in an appropriate case.
Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of the private respondents to challenge the selection process. 2. Applicability of the General Rules versus the Special Rules. 3. Validity of the selection process conducted by the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education. 4. Doctrine of Waiver in the context of the selection process. 5. Directions by the High Court regarding the selection process. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Locus Standi of the Private Respondents to Challenge the Selection Process: The private respondents, who failed to clear the test, filed a writ petition challenging the advertisement and the selection process, claiming it was ultra vires the Special Rules. The official respondents contended that the private respondents lacked the locus standi to question the process since they had participated in the test with full knowledge of the selection criteria. The Supreme Court emphasized that the private respondents, having participated in the selection process, could not later challenge it, invoking the doctrine of waiver. 2. Applicability of the General Rules versus the Special Rules: The dispute centered on whether the General Rules or the Special Rules should govern the recruitment of Physiotherapists. The learned Single Judge held that the Special Rules should prevail despite the non obstante clause in the General Rules. However, the Supreme Court noted that the recruitment was conducted under the General Rules, as indicated in the advertisement and Office Memorandum. The Court hinted that the Single Judge might have erred in prioritizing the Special Rules over the General Rules but refrained from making a conclusive determination, leaving it for future adjudication. 3. Validity of the Selection Process Conducted by the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education: The selection process included a written test, and the appellants were declared successful. The High Court's Division Bench, despite recognizing the private respondents' lack of entitlement to challenge the process after participating, directed the Board to revise the selection criteria by adding marks for academic qualifications. The Supreme Court found this direction unjustified, asserting that the private respondents, by their conduct, had waived their right to challenge the selection process. 4. Doctrine of Waiver in the Context of the Selection Process: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of its criteria cannot later challenge it if the outcome is unfavorable. Citing precedents like Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand and Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, the Court held that the private respondents, having taken a chance in the selection process, were barred from questioning it subsequently. 5. Directions by the High Court Regarding the Selection Process: The Division Bench of the High Court had modified the Single Judge's order by directing the Board to reject candidates who did not secure 30% marks in their diploma examination and to add 30% marks for intermediate examination and 70% marks for diploma/degree examination to the marks obtained in the written test. The Supreme Court found this direction inappropriate, emphasizing that the private respondents' participation in the process constituted a waiver of their right to challenge it. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and the learned Single Judge, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the private respondents. The Court underscored the principle that participation in a selection process with knowledge of its rules precludes subsequent challenges to those rules. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
