G? @D Smgm ench IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH, AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. (&%§ 12011 (3.3.) / PETITIONER Prashant Kumar Singh, Aged about— 28 years, S/O K.P. Singh R/O Govt. Qtr. No. D-3, North Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distt. Raigharh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. / State of Chhattisgarh through-Secretary, Department of Food, .Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2, fCollector, Distt. : Raigarh, Raigarh (C.G.) 3/ Avinash Kumar Tiwari, S/O Ram Kumar Tiwari, Raghupati Bhawan, Behind Gyan Bharati Schooi, Link Road, Janjgir, Distt. Janigir- Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. - @ H§GH COURT O? CHHATTISGARH : B§LASPUR WRH' PETIT!ON (S) NO. 1885 OF 2011 PETITIONER Prashant Kumar Singh Versus State ofChhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie) Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Vipin Puniabi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushi! Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 08m day of Aprii, 201 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to chaiienge the iegatity and vaiidity of the order dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure P-i), whereby, the respondent No.3 has been selected on the post of Data Entry Operator and aiso seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment in his favour. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.10.2009 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner alongwith other candidates appiied for the post of Data Entry Operator. Thereafter, the written test was conducted. After completing the selection process, the respondent No.3 was appointed for the post of Data Entry Operator, by order dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure P-i). Subsequentiy, the petitioner obtained certain documents under the Right to information Act, 2005, by which the petitioner came to know that the evaluation of the answer sheet was not done properly; if the evaluation is conducted properly. the petitioner would have got higher marks than the respondent No.3. Thereafter, by raising all of his grievance, the petitioner submitted la representation on 14.09.2010 (Annexure P-B) before the respondent authorities, but the same has not been considered and decided till date. Thus, this petition. {}x @ 3. Chauenge in th& entire petition is wrong selection of the respondent No.3 on the alleged grounds of wrong evaluation and awarding of more marks. The petitioner is not challenging his non-appointment on the post. Thus, the petitioner is not aggrieved person by the order of appointment of respondent No.3 in this petition. 4. Even on the facts pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.1 0.2009, selection process was completed and thereafter after compietion of the recruitment process by seiection committee by order dated 18.11.2009 (Annexure P-3), the appointments were made. The respondent No.3 was also appointed on 13.08.2010. *5. lt is a trite law that once the candidate is unsuccessful in the selection process, the candidate is estopped from challenging the selection process on any ground. 6. The Supreme Court, in D.Nagaraj & Others v. State of Kamaraka & othe/s’. observed as under: “7. The sole question that requires to be determined in these appeals is whether the appellants could maintain the aforesaid writ petitions. lt does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder, the existence of the right is implicit for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under the said Article. lt is also well established that a person who is not aggrieved by the discrimination complained of cannot maintain a writ petition.“ 7. Further, in Vinoy Kumar v. State of UP. & OthersQ, the Supreme Court observed as under: “2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantiatly invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been vioiated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a ' (1977) 2 scc 143 1 (2001) 4 scc 734 (A right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the generai, rule is oniy in cases where a writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or iiied in pubiic interest. it is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to Cases where iegal wrong or iegai injuries are caused to a particuiar person or his fundamental rights are vioiated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective iegai aid organisation which can take care of such cases." 8‘ The Supreme Court in Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission. Uttarakhand & Othels3 held that a candidate who participated in the seiection process cannot challenge the validity of the said selection process after appearing in the said selection process and taking opportunity of being selected. 25. in this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in G. Sarana (Dr) v. University of Lucknow, wherein also a similar stand was taken by a candidate and in that context the Supreme Court had declared that the candidate who participated in the selection process cannot challenge the validity of the said selection process after appearing in the said selection process and taking opportunity of being selected. Para 15 inter aiia reads thus : (SCC p.591) 15 He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a change of having a, favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to tUrn round and question the constitution of the committee." 26. in RS. Gopinatnan v. State of Kerala this Court relying on the above principle held thus : ISCC p‘ 84, para 44) “44 ....... Apart from the fact that the appellant accepted his posting orders without any demur in that capacity, his subsequent order of appointment dated 15-7-1992 issued by the é (2011M SCC 150 bl ‘ G. Governor had not been challenged by the appellant. Once he chose to join the mainstream on the basis of option given to him, he cannot turn back and challenge the conditions. He could have opted not to join at all but he did not do so. Now it does not lie in his mouth to clamour regarding the cut-off date or for that matter any other condition. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, rightly held that the appellant is estopped and precluded from questioning the said order dated 14-1-1992. The application of principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence has been considered by us in many cases, one of them being G. Sarana (Did) v. University of Lucknow ..... " x 27. ln Union of India v. S. Vinod Kumarin SCC at para 18 it was held that : (SSC p. 107) 18 it is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure taid down therein were not entitled to question the same” 28. Besides, in KH. Siraj v. High Court of Keraia in SOC para 72 and 74 it was held that the candidates who participated in the interview with knowledge that for selection they had to secure prescribed minimum marks on being unsuccessful in interview could not turn around and challenge that the said provision of minimum marks was improper, said challenge is liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel. Ashok Applying the well settled principle of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/-'