C.W.P.No.10186 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.10186 of 2006 Date of Decision : 07.04.2008 Ravinder Kumar .....Petitioner versus Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Ms.Monika Jalota, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the Interview for the post of Fireman. The petitioner belongs to General Category and has B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree from Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut. An advertisement was published by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'), on 30.7.2005, for filling up the 41 posts of Firemen, including 19 posts of General Category, in the Fire and C.W.P.No.10186 of 2006 2 Emergency Service of the Corporation. The aged prescribed for the said posts was 18 to 30 years. The criteria for physical test/standard was that of covering 100 yards distance in one minute with a weight of 60 Kgs.; lifting the hook stair by 3 and 6 round in the erect position and climbing pipe or rope from a height of 8 to 10 feet from the ground in an erect position. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the post of Fireman under the General Category. He was called for physical test. The petitioner qualified the physical test and then appeared in the written test conducted by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner could not success in the written test. It is the case of the petitioner that in the advertisement there is no condition of holding the written test, but the written test was held. On the basis of the marked obtained in the written test, the candidates have been called for interview and thus, it is alleged that holding of written test is in contravention of the terms of the advertisement. Therefore, the selection process is unjustified and unfair and the petitioner should have been called for interview on the basis of the physical test passed by him. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the criteria of selection has been worked out by the Municipal Corporation and approved by the Secretary, Local Government on 12.1.2006 and, therefore, the said criteria cannot be made applicable in respect of the advertisement published on 30.7.2005. In reply to the writ petition, it has been pointed out that the Committee comprising of the Home Secretary-cum-Secretary, Local Government, Chandigarh Administration, Joint Commissioner, Municipal C.W.P.No.10186 of 2006 3 Corporation and Joint Secretary, Home Department, Chandigarh Administration, in its meeting held on 6.5.2005, discussed the mode of recruitment and qualifications for various posts to be filled up in the Fire Wing of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. It was decided by the said Committee that the recruitment will be made keeping in view the qualifications provided in the Punjab Fire Brigade Rules, 1977, as adopted by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and the criteria of selection will be worked out by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The Municipal Corporation worked out the criteria of selection and sent the same for approval of the Secretary, Local Government, Chandigarh Administration, on 27.7.2005 and the said criteria was approved on 12.1.2006. In the said criteria, the marks for the educational qualification, sports and physical test were contemplated apart from 60 marks for written test and 10 marks for interview out of the total 100 marks and in terms of the said criteria, the written test was held on 1.4.2006 in which the petitioner appeared, but remained unsuccessful and thus, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition. Having unsuccessful in the written test, the petitioner cannot be permitted to dispute the holding of written test. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Rajesh Kumar Gupta Versus State of U.P. and others, (2005) 5 SCC 172”, to contend that the Rule of estoppel cannot be applied against the petitioner. However, a reading of the aforesaid judgment would show that the question involved in the aforesaid case was the change of criteria for preparation of the merit list from the State level to the District level and thus, it was held that the Rule of estoppel C.W.P.No.10186 of 2006 4 cannot be extended to the petitioner. But in the present case, though the criteria was framed even prior to the issuance of advertisement, but the same was approved on 12.1.2006. It was thereafter, the written test was conducted. It can be said that with the approval of the criteria received on 12.1.2006, the criteria already framed by the Corporation on 27.7.2005 gets approved, but without going into that question, the fact remains that the petitioner has appeared in the written test knowing well that such written test was not a condition in the advertisement originally published. The appearance of the petitioner is a conscious act. The petitioner has sought to dispute holding of the written test having remained unsuccessful in the said test. In “K.H.Siraj Versus High Court of Kerala and others, (2006) 6 SCC 395”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held to the following effect:- “xx xx xx xx 73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper. It was so held by this Court in para 9 of Madan Lal versus State of J&K, as under: “9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral C.W.P.No.10186 of 2006 5 interview. Up to this stage, there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In Om Parkash Shukla versus Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 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.” Subsequently, in “Union of India and others Versus S.Vinodh Kumar and others, (2007) 8 SCC 100”, it was held that those candidates C.W.P.No.10186 of 2006 6 who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein, are not entitled to question the same. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to dispute the selection process of holding of written test for the post of Fireman, . Therefore, the present writ petition is without any merit. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 07-04-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE