IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4180 of 2008 Reserved on: 30.11.2010 Decided on: 14.12.2010. Om Parkash and others …..Petitioners. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.H.S. Rawat, counsel for respondents No.13 and 56. Mr.R.R. Rahi, counsel for respondent No.65. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice V.K. Ahuja, J: This judgment shall dispose of the present petition filed by the petitioners (originally OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act). On abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application stood transferred to this Court and was registered as a Civil Writ Petition. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are aggrieved by the selection and appointment of private respondents No.3 to 69 as Conductors made by respondents No.1 and 2 pursuant to the selection process started from 14th July, 1996 for filling the posts of Conductors in four Districts i.e. Shimla, Sirmaur, Kinnaur and Solan. The challenge was made on the ground that the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose was de hors the Rules, hence the selection made on the basis of the recommendations are ultra virus and unconstitutional. It was also alleged that 175 posts were advertised and only 67 posts were filled up by giving weightage to the candidates belonging to a particular region on political considerations. The allegations were also made that a close relative of a local MLA of Arki was selected giving him more marks in viva voce, as he was relative of a sitting MLA. The allegations were also made that the respondents have selected only those candidates who were either in relation with the political persons or were belonging to the upper areas of Shimla District ignoring the merit of the candidates who were more qualified than the candidates who have been selected by respondents No.1 and 2. The general allegations were also made that the respondents have not granted any benefits to the candidates belonging to the IRDP category. 3. In reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2, they denied that the selection was not made in accordance with the procedure or more persons were selected from one District. It was also pleaded that the candidates were sponsored from all the four Districts by the Employment Exchanges and the district-wise break-up of the selected candidates is not relevant as the selection was made entirely on merit for the whole Division. The allegations in regard to the bias in selecting a relative of an MLA of Arki were also denied. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision in Ajay Hasia and others versus Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 722, to substantiate his plea that a Society registered under the Societies Act and running an engineering college was held, on facts, to be a State and a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution of India lies against it on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights. 6. This decision is not attracted to the present facts. No specific challenge has been laid by the respondents that the selection process initiated by the HRTC cannot be looked into by this Court on the ground of violation of fundamental rights and it was not disputed that the HRTC was a State accordingly. Therefore, this decision does not help the petitioners. 7. The other decision relied upon by the petitioners was in Ashok Kumar Yadav and others versus State of Haryana and others, (1985) 4 Supreme Court Cases 417, wherein observations were made by their Lordships in regard to the bias in the selection and the close relations of some members of the Public Service Commission appearing for interview before it. It was observed that the Members should only not take part in interviewing their relations, however, they need not withdraw from the entire process of interview and selection. The observations were also made that the concerned Members of the Committee should withdraw from the selection committee itself. 8. This decision clearly lays down the law as to how the members of the Selection Committee should associate with the selection process and what is to be done by such members whose relatives are appearing in the interview. However, this decision does not help the petitioners in the present case since they have not laid any specific challenge to participation by any member of the Selection Committee or the question that their relatives were selected by them ignoring the merit. 9. It is clear from the pleadings of the petitioners that they had individual grievances as against the selection process since the allegations were made that one of the petitioners was not considered or given benefit being an IRDP candidate or such other vague allegations. However, it cannot be said that the pleas raised by all the petitioners were common in regard to the selection process undertaken by respondents No.1 and 2. It is also clear that vague allegations were made in regard to the selection since it was alleged that out of the persons selected from Shimla District, more were from the upper areas mentioned therein due to some political considerations. No such conclusion can be drawn by this Court in the absence of any specific facts that the merit was ignored in the selection process. The mere fact that the net result of the selection was that more persons were selected from one area is not sufficient to hold that the selection process is vitiated since the selections were made on the basis of merit and the selection cannot be on the basis of candidates sponsored from each area and regional representation cannot be made in this regard of the persons selected from these Districts. The selection process was initiated and the candidates were sponsored by all the Employment Exchanges in these four Districts and accordingly, the results were drawn and no conclusion can be drawn of bias or wrong selection only because some of the Districts in this process of selection got more candidates selected as compared to other Districts. 10. Coming to the allegations made that a relation of a sitting MLA of Arki was selected, there were no allegations in regard to the name of the person selected, the name of the MLA or the role played by him in this selection process. Only vague allegations were leveled not substantiated by any facts or documents and as such this plea cannot be considered. 11. Apart from the above, it is also clear that all the petitioners had participated in the selection process by appearing for the interview and once they had appeared in the selection process, they are estopped from challenging the constitution of the Selection Committee or on such similar grounds. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of the Apex Court in Amlan Jyoti Borooah versus State of Assam and others, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 227, wherein it was observed that a candidate, who had subjected himself to a faulty selection process, could not question it later on. The issue involved was that though in the advertisement, it was mentioned that there will be written test, then physical test and then interview for the selection to the post of Sub Inspector, but the Selection Committee changed the process and drew a procedure for holding of the interview prior to holding of physical ability test. In that connection, the above observations were made by their Lordships, which are relevant for the determination of the present dispute. 12. It is clear from the above discussion that the petitioners challenged the selection on the basis of vague allegations and the allegations were made general in nature and not specific and merely by drawing own conclusions that more persons were selected from a particular area, no conclusion can be drawn until and unless the said allegations are substantiated to hold that the process was faulty. 13. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the selection process was undertaken in the year 1996 and the private respondents are already working as Conductors and merely on assumptions, the petitioners cannot be held entitled to the relief that the selection of the private respondents was not in accordance with the procedure. 14. Therefore, we hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners, which is dismissed accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. Dec. 14, 2010. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.