{1} wp13710.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.137 OF 2010 1 Kulwant Vijay Sheshrao, age: 36 years, Occ: Unemployed, R/o H.No.E-4, Mauli Nagar, Beed Bypass Road, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. 2 Wani Ghanshyam Vasant, age: 37 years, Occ: Unemployed, R/o Gat No.55, Plot No.23, Shive Colony, Jalgaon. 3 Balaji Rajaram Wadaje, age: 35 years, Occ: Unemployed, R/o Parijat, New Shrey Nagar, Aurangabad. 4 Mangesh Sopanrao Mate, age: 30 years, Occ: Unemployed, R/o At Post Durganagar, Ladgaon Road, Vaijapur, Tq.Vaijapur, Dist.Aurangabad. 5 Dinkar Shantaram Shirodkar, age: major, Occ: unemployed, R/o Kaka Niwas, Plot No.35, Pragati Nagar, Old Saikheda Road, Jail Road, Nasik Road, Nasik. 6 Singh Jasvindar Singh Mukhtar, age: major, Occ: unemployed; 7 Sunil Karbhari Gadakh, age: 35 years, Occ: unemployed; {2} wp13710.odt 8 Yogesh Dhanraj Raut, age: 32 years, Occ: unemployed; 9 Vinayak Prabhakar Kakad, age: 32 years, Occ: unemployed; 10 Vilas Sakharam Kakad, age: 30 years, Occ: unemployed; 11 Kapil Gokul Kale, age: 27 years, Occ: unemployed; 12 Chhapadiban Jaspal Singh Mkhtar, age: major, Occ: unemployed; 13 Nikam Prakash Jankiram, age: major, Occ: unemployed; 14 Amte Yogesh Ashok, age: major, Occ: unemployed; 15 Ashwin Gautam Pagare, age: 22 years, Occ: unemployed; 16 Jitendra Ramdas Tabhane, age: major, Occ: unemployed, No.4 to 14, all are resident at NTPS Eklahare Colony, Old E16, Nasik Road, Nasik. 17 Amodkar Pandurang Ganpat, age: major, Occ: unemployed, R/o Plot No.5, Pimpal Patil, Jail Road, Nasik. 18 Salve Prakash Dagadu, age: major, Occ: unemployed, {3} wp13710.odt R/o Brij Nagar, Jail Road, Nasik Road, Nasik. 19 Inamdar Balasaheb Sudhakar, age: major, Occ: unemployed, R/o Vasant Vihar, Near Jail Road, Nasik Road, Nasik. 20 Nikode Murlidhar Shriram, age: major, Occ: unemployed, R/o Hind Shakti Nagar, Jail Road, Nasik Road, Nasik. 21 Patil Santosh Bhaskar, age: 32 years, Occ: unemployed, R/o Gokul Nagar, Jail Road, Nasik Road, Nasik. 22 Tarale Nandu Prabhakar, age: major, Occ: unemployed, R/o Hariom Nagar, Nasik Road, Nasik. 23 Ghuge Ratnakar Shriram, age: 32 years, Occ: unemployed, R/o At Post Kotam Gaon, Tq. & Dist. Nasik. Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Ministry of Energy, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 2 Maharashtra State Power Generation Co.Ltd., through its Human Resources Department, {4} wp13710.odt “Prakashgad”, Plot No.C-19, “E” Block, 7th Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. 3 IBPS Company, IBPS House, Sector 90, D.P.Road, Near Thakur Polytechnic, Off. Western Express Highway, P.B.No.8587, Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400 101. Respondents Mr. Nitin N. Chitlange, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.B.Choudhary, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.M.Godsay, advocate for Respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 served. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 01st March, 2011 ORAL ORDER (Per R.M.Borde, J.): 1 The petitioners are raising challenge to the recruitment process for the purposes of making appointment to the post of Artison Grade `C’, in pursuant to the advertisement No.TECH-05/2009, issued by Respondent No.2-Company. The challenge is mainly based on the ground of impermissibility of conducting an aptitude test for shortlisting the candidates, by Respondent No.2-Company. The selection of the candidates, according to petitioners, ought to have been made only on the {5} wp13710.odt basis of the trade test. 2 It is not disputed that all the petitioners had applied for seeking appointment to the post of Artisan Grade `C’ in pursuance to the advertisement issued by Respondent-Company. It is also not disputed that all the petitioners participated in the process of selection and appeared for the aptitude test. Having failed to qualify themselves for the trade test, the petitioners are raising challenge to the process of selection. 3 Respondent No.2-Company has filed affidavit-in-reply and controverted the contentions raised by petitioners. It is contended that there were thirtyone thousand applications received for the post of Artisan Grade `C’ and with a view to shortlist the applicants, an aptitude test was conducted. It is stated by Respondent-Company that with a view to shortlist the candidates for the purposes of conducting trade test, a written examination was held on 28.09.2010 and a list of candidates eligible for appearing for the trade test was prepared. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-reply that marks secured in the aptitude test were not considered for selecting the candidates. The final selection was made on the basis of merit amongst the candidates who were allowed to appear for the trade test only. It is the contention of Respondent No.2-Company that holding of aptitude test is in consonance with the conditions noted in the {6} wp13710.odt advertisement. 4 We have perused the advertisement issued by the Company in the month of February-2009 bearing No.TECH-05/2009. Paragraphs no.7 and 8 of the advertisement read as under: “7) The candidates will have to appear for tradetest. 8) The candidates will be short listed if required & will be called for trade test & Personal Interview.” In clause (a) under the heading “General Conditions”, in the advertisement, it is noted that: “Prescribed qualifications are minimum and mere possession of the same does not entitle the candidate to be called for written test / Personal Interview. The candidates will be short-listed commensurate with the number of vacancies”. 5 It is permissible for Respondent No.2-Company to prescribe a criteria or evolve a procedure for shortlisting the candidates considering number of applications received in response to the advertisement. The action of the Respondent- {7} wp13710.odt Company of shortlisting the candidates by holding an aptitude test is also in consonance with the terms stated in the advertisement. We, therefore, do not find merit in the objection raised by the petitioners, in that regard. 6 It is also not disputed that the petitioners have participated in the process of selection and having found unsuccessful in the process of selection, without any demur, they are estopped from challenging the selection criteria. In this regard, it would be advantageous to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dhananjay Malik & others Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 2158. While dealing with an identical issue, the Honourable Apex Court has made following observations: “7 It is not disputed that the writ petitioners-respondents herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as B.P.E. or graduate with diploma in physical education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules. 8 In Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, this Court pointed out that when the {8} wp13710.odt petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, 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 writ petitions. This Court further pointed out 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 round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the present case, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners- respondents herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done. 9 In a recent judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCR 506 at p.516 SCR, this Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, {9} wp13710.odt estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process.” 7 Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioners, who have unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection, are estopped from challenging the selection criteria or the advertisement as well as the process of selection. The petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected. 8 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. R.M.BORDE D.B.BHOSALE JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp13710