c^ /^ cn a? SINGLE BENCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0^l OF 2010 PETITIONER ^ ^^^- ^'K---"" <<*. ^',.^^* y^- ^-" '^~ RESPONDBNTS . .^fe^^^^;^... ^^f^m^,^ •^'.,...../"' j ~»%s: * ""--7.. ~T Vibha Gauraha wife of ShriN. Gauraha, aged about 46 years, resident of G.-15, Irrigation Department, Rampur, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS K State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Welfare Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Zila Panchayat, Through Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). ^ 3. Assistant Project Officer, Zila Panchayat, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). WMT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^^^m^ /s~.sr'ts^ L^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1807 OF 2010 PETITIONER Vibha Gauraha RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. ShriA.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 21st day ofApril, 2010) 1. Case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 16-1-2008 (Annexure - P/2) issued by the Zila Panchayat, Korba, the petitioner applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-11. According to the advertisement dated 16-1-2008, the cut off date fixed for age limit was 1-1-2008. After due scrutiny of the application form admit card was issued to the petitioner, she participated in the selection process and her name found place in the tentative select list at S.No.4. In spite of the said fact, the petitioner was not called for counseling and when she approached the authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the respondent authorities vide letter dated 1-8-2009 (Annexure - P/5) informed the petitioner that on account of over age of the petitioner as on 1-1-2009 she was not called for counseling. The cut off date was changed from 1-1-2008 to 1-1-2009 by corrigendum dated 28-1-2008 (Annexure - P/3). Thus, this petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cut off date fixed for age limit was changed from 1-1-2008 to '^. i ^^y ^-^^^ 1-1-2009 by corrigendum dated 28-1-2008 (Annexure - P/3). As per the cut off date fixed earlier in the advertisement i.e. 1-1-2008 ' the petitioner is well within the prescribed age limit, despite that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.2 in an illegal and arbitrary manner. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that much prior to initiation of selection process, the cut off date for age limit was changed from 1-1-2008 to 1-1-2009 by corrigendum dated 28-1-2008 because the cut off date i.e. 1-1-2008 was wrongly printed in the advertisement. The petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to change of cut off date for age limit before participating in the selection process whereas she has raised the objection only after publication of the tentative select list. The petitionerclaims to have suffered not on account of any misconduct or non-action on the part of the respondents. Thus, the petitioner may not be entitled to any relief for her own fault. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is an admitted position that before initiating the selection process the respondent authorities issued the corrigendum changing the cut off date fixed for age limit from 1-1-2008 to 1-1-2009 on the ground that the same has been wrongly printed in the advertisement. The petitioner without raising any objection participated in the selection process and only after publication of the tentative select list, she has raised the issue, which is not open to her to turn around and attack the corrigendum. I^T^ ^ ^i....' > -: ^.4^ , I ^••^ ' M /^ ^^^^'J'/ ^ Gowri It is the well settled principle of law that when a candidate appears at the examination without protest and subsequently found to be not appointed, question of entertaining a petition challenging the said selection process is impress.ible. In Union of India & Others v, S- Vinodh Kumar & Others1, the Supreme Court observed, /ntera//a, as under: "It is also well settted that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil & See also Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission.)" Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. — Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge / ' (2007) 8 SCC 100