Read Order: Tejender Kumar v. Union of India, Ministry of Defence New Delhi and Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, May 13, 2022: While dealing with a writ petition challenging the selection of another candidate in respect of a post held by the petitioner on a contractual basis, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the petitioner cannot take a turn around and question the result of the selection only because he has not been able to get selected. 

The Bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat held, “It is not even disputed that the respondents had issued a public advertisement for selection and recruitment of a candidate on the post in question. The petitioner has also participated in the said selection process. However, he has failed to come up to the mark. Having participated in the process and having not come upto the mark, the petitioner cannot take a turn round and question the result of the selection only because he has not been able to get selected.”

It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were conducting a fresh selection for the post on which the petitioner is already working on a contract basis. It was the case of the counsel that the respondents could not replace the petitioner with another contractual employee and, therefore, the respondents deserved to be restrained from conducting the process of selection and from terminating the service of the petitioner. 

Therefore, the Court was dealing with a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned advertisement by which the post against which the petitioner was working since last many years was advertised, with a further prayer that the practice adopted by the respondents be quashed vide which the respondents were compelling the petitioner to undergo interview again.

The Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the process of selection pursuant to the advertisement in question was already completed and the selected person was already issued the appointment letter. It was further held that the petitioner even participated in the process of selection and having failed in the selection, he cannot question the process of selection simply because the result was not to his liking. In this regard, the Counsel relied upon Virender Dhanda Versus Union of India and others, decided on June 2, 2017. 

Having heard the counsel for the parties, the Court did not find any substance in the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The Court observed that the respondents issued a public advertisement for the selection and recruitment of a candidate for the post in question and the petitioner also participated in the said selection process. However, he has failed to come up to the mark and having participated in the process and having not come up to the mark, the petitioner cannot take a turn around and question the result of the selection only because he has not been able to get selected, the Court held. 
Also, the Court found the reliance placed by the counsel for the respondents upon the aforesaid judgment rendered in Virender Dhanda’s Case (supra) to be well placed. Moreover, the Court added that the person who was selected in the process of selection was already issued the appointment letter. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same was dismissed. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment