IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17200 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ASHALATHA C.K., AGED 51, W/O. BALAKRISHNAN, AISWARYA, KAKKULANGARA, EDAKKAD P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 005. BY ADV. MR.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. STANDING COUNSEL MR. P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 17200 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as LD Typist on daily wage basis pursuant to notification dated 22.11.2007, in the University of Calicut. The petitioner is still continuing on daily wage basis based on Exhibit P2 order of appointment. While so, the respondent published Exhibit P3 notification dated 17.06.2008 inviting applications for the post of LD Typist in the University. Indisputably, Exhibit P3 is a notification for filling up of vacancies in the said cadre on a regular basis. Pursuant to Exhibit P3, the petitioner had applied and she had participated in the selection process. However, she could not succeed in the written test conducted pursuant to Exhibit P3 notification. Now, the petitioner is turning around and challenging the selection process initiated as per Exhibit P3 on various grounds. WP (C) No. 17200 of 2010 2 2. According to the petitioner, earlier notification Ad/F1/13718/92 was issued by the University for selection to the post of LD Typist. However, the selection process was not proceeded with and appointments were made against the vacancies in the said Cadre on temporary basis. While so, another notification Ad.E3/2592/04 dated 22-11-2007 was issued by the University for the same posts. Thereafter, a ommon test, Practical Test and Interview were also conducted. Exhibit P2 is the memo issued to the petitioner requiring her to attend the Practical Test and Interview pursuant to the said notification. On the strength of the said selection the petitioner is continuing in the service of the University on daily wage basis. Now, after unsuccessful participation in the selection process initiated as per Exhibit P3 dated 17.06.2008 this writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers:- A. Declare that the notification dated 17-06-2008 with No.Ad.E3/250/08 is illegal, perverse and against natural WP (C) No. 17200 of 2010 3 justice. B. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondent to drop all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3 notification and to make appointments to the post of LD Typist from the list prepared pursuant to the notification dated 22-11-2007 as Ad.E3/2595/04. 3. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner for challenging the selection process initiated as per Exhibit P3 and deciding their sustainability in the light of the settled position of Law I would like to examine certain other relevant aspects. The petitioner did not produce the order of appointment made pursuant to the notification dated 22.11.2007 and the said notification dated 22.11.2007. The date of appointment on daily wage basis is also not mentioned in the writ petition. The tenor of the contentions would reveal that the endeavor of the petitioner is to canvas the position that the selection process initiated as per notification dated 22.11.2007 was WP (C) No. 17200 of 2010 4 a regular one and therefore, he is entitled for regular appointment based on the same. It can be taken only as a feeble attempt as the petitioner did not care to produce the said notification and also the order of appointment on daily wage basis, if any, made pursuant to the same. At the same time, Exhibit P2 itself would suggest the nature of the notification and the nature of the appointment proposed to be effected pursuant to the said notification dated 22.11.2007. In Exhibit P2 the subject is mentioned as hereunder:- “Sub:- Practical Test and Interview for selection to the post of Typist (on daily wage basis)-reg.” 4. The reference made thereunder is about the notification No. Ad.E3/2592/04 (Vol.II), dated 22.11.2007. That apart, the opening sentence in Exhibit P2 memo reads thus:- “Smt. Ashalatha. C.K.is informed that the Practical Test and Interview for selection to the post of Typist (on daily wage basis)is fixed on 16 th January 2008 , at Seminar WP (C) No. 17200 of 2010 5 Complex, Calicut University Campus” (emphasis supplied) 5. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, after referring about the Notification Ad.E3/2592/04 dated 22.11.2007 it is stated thus:- “Later, practical test and interview were conducted on 16.01.2008. True copy of the memo dated 08.01.2008 issued in favour of the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P2” 6. Thus, it is evident that Exhibit P2 memo was issued to the petitioner pursuant to the notification dated 22.11.2007 and it was specifically mentioned thereunder that the Practical Test and Interview being conducted for the purpose of appointment on daily wage basis. 7. In the light of the above facts obtained in this case the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the notification dated 22.11.2007 and the Practical Test and Interview were conducted on 16.01.2008 only for the purpose of appointment on daily wage basis. Even when WP (C) No. 17200 of 2010 6 confronted with such a situation the petitioner did not seek time for production of the said notification dated 22.11.2007 or the order of appointment, if any, made pursuant to the same. Virtually, it was not disputed that the said selection process was one initiated for appointment on daily wage basis. The inescapable conclusion in view of the facts expatiated above, is that the petitioners claim for regular appointment based on notification Ad.E3/2592/04 dated 22.11.2007 is absolutely unsustainable. 8. Now, I may deal with the challenge against Exhibit P3 notification dated 17.06.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner had applied pursuant to Exhibit P3 notification dated 17.06.2008 and unsuccessfully appeared in the test conducted pursuant to the same. 9. Having participated in the selection process initiated as per Exhibit P3 the petitioner cannot turn WP (C) No. 17200 of 2010 7 around and legally challenge the said selection process. In the decision reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515 the Honorable Apex Court held that after participating in a selection process without any demur or protest an unsuccessful candidate cannot be permitted later on to question the process. In this case Exhibit P3 notification is dated 17.06.2008. Without any demur or protest the petitioner had participated in the selection process and came out unsuccessful. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the selection process initiated as per Exhibit P3. That apart, the petitioner was appointed as per Exhibit P2, only on daily wage basis. Such appointment cannot confer any right on the petitioner. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. rkc