IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14495 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 17.09.2009 Rachna Malik .... PETITIONER Versus Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Dr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner was one of the applicants to the post of Assistant Teacher Arts & Drawing in University Campus School, Rohtak, which was advertised vide advertisement No.3/2008 (Annexure P-1). She has filed the instant petition challenging the selection of respondent No.3 on the said post. It is the case of the petitioner that the Selection Committee, without adopting any criteria for selection, has selected respondent No.3, while ignoring the academic qualification and teaching experience of the petitioner. In this regard, it is stated that the petitioner passed her M.A. Fine Arts by securing 74.7% marks, whereas respondent No.3 has passed her MA Fine Arts only with 64.5% marks. It is also stated that the petitioner is CWP No. 14495 of 2009 -2- having 4 ½ years teaching experience as a Fine Arts Teacher in a private school and is also pursuing her Ph.D., from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut in Fine Arts. On the other hand, respondent No.3 does not possess any teaching experience. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.3, who has been arbitrarily selected on the post. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, as per the advertisement, a candidate applying for the post of Assistant Teacher Arts and Drawing was required to possess the following academic qualifications : 1. Higher Secondary/Intermediate/Sr. School Certificate Exam. with minimum 4 years (Full time diploma in Painting/Fine Art from a recognized Institute/University. 2. B.A with drawing and painting/art/fine art with minimum 2 years (full time) diploma from a recognized Institute. 3. M.A in Drawing and painting/Fine Arts from a recognized University. 4. B.A. (Hons.) in Art & Art Education, Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi. Concededly, no experience was required for the post in question. It is also conceded position that respondent No.3 possessed the requisite academic qualifications. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.3, who has been selected on the post, is not possessing the requisite qualifications. Merely because the petitioner has passed the MA Fine Arts by securing more marks or she is having some experience, it cannot be presumed that she is more meritorious than the selected candidate. The Selection CWP No. 14495 of 2009 -3- Committee has selected respondent No.3 on the basis of the assessment made by it during the interview. There is no allegation of malafide against the Selection Committee. Merely on the basis that the petitioner secured higher marks and was possessing some experience, it cannot be said that the selection was vitiated or illegal. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that no criteria was laid down by the Selection Committee, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this point, in view of the principle of estoppel. In Amlan Jyoti Borooah Versus State of Assam and others, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 227, it was held that a candidate, who had subjected himself to a faulty selection process could not be permitted to question the same later on. Even otherwise, I do not find any fault in the selection process. No merit. Dismissed. September 17, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE