ogl^!(?% Petitioner ResDondents HtGHCOUFg'Oi^CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WrilLPetition (Sl No. 7744 of 2007 Satyapunj Kulmitra, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Hari Ram Kulmifra, ' resident of Qtr. No.87, Aadarsh Nagar (in front of Shri Ram Nagar), Kanker, District Kanker (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhatttegarh, through the Secretary, Dspartment of Homs (Police), Dau Katyan Singh Bhawan, Chh^tfisgarh Bhawan, Chhattisgarh, Secretariat, Raipur(CG). 2) Chhattisgarh Pubtic Service Commisslon, through its Secretary, Chhater Road, Raipur (CG). 3) Awnish Kumar ChauFasiya, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Mahaveer Prasad Chaurasiya, through Chhattisgarh Pubiic Service CQmmisston, through its Secretery, Chhattar Road, Raipur (CG). (Writ Petition underArticle 226 oftheConstitutionoflndia.) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri RahuNha, counsel for ths petitioner. Shri AiokBateshi, Govt. Advocato tor the State. ORAL ORDER on 7-4-2008 The petMoner, by this petition, seeks quashing of the finat selection iist of the Assistant Pubiic Prosecution Officer (for short, A..P.P.O.") issued by the Public Service Commission for appointment on the said post, after proper selection. 2) Brief faets necessary for disposal of this case are that ttie petitioner pursuant to an advertisement dated 21^-2006 (Annexure Prt) made an application toappear in Uie competitive examination for appointment on the n '» 2-- post of A.P.P.O. The examination schedule provkies for written examination foiiowed by interview. The petitioner appeared in ttie examination and on being qualifled he was cailed for interview held on 22-8-2007. A copy of the call fetter for interview dated 23-7-2007 is annexed as Annexure P/2. Thereafter, selection list was declared on the basis of marte obtained by the candidates, wherein the petitioner did not find his name. The peStioner being unsuccessfu) in the selection, is seeking quashing of the seiection list as the mode! answer sheet supplied to the evaluators was not correct. According to the petitioner, had it been correct, the petitioner ought to have secured more than 168 marks which the respondent No.3 has secured and would have been deciared successful. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has obtained a model answer shest ater examination was over and the petitioner was declared unsuccessful. Certain answers in the answer sheets were incorrect. Thus, the entire seiection list deserves to be quashed. 4) Having heard iearned counse! for the petitioner, perused pieadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the petitioner participated in the selection process. Being successlut in ihe written sxamination, he was calied for interview. The alleged modsl answer sheet, which according to ieamed counse! for the petitioner is not correct, was mad®appiicabie to ai) the candidates, who appeared in the examination and on the basis of the said answer sheet, the seleetion iist was prepared. Thus, at this stage, declaring the mode! answer sheet as bad and quashing the entire seiection list would be unreasonable and improper and may create prejudice to so many candidates. — - 'T i s ^^SSs •!SS ^: •^ 5) It is wetl settled principle of iaw that a candhtete after appsaring in the examination witliout protest and subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, cannot chaltengs the said examination on the ground of irregularity in the process of setection. 6) Applying the welt setijed principtes of !aw to the facts of ttie present case wherein the petitioner has participated in the selection process and was unsuccessful, ttie petitioner cannot tum around and chaltenge later the procedure of selecUon on the ground <hat the selection was irregular as model answer sheet was not correct. (See; Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others , Vijay Syat and another Vs. State of Punjab and others , Ludhiana Centrai Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Amrik Singh & others3, Sardara Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and otfters, Suneeta Agrawa! Vs. State of Haryana and others5, Union of india and another Vs. N. Chandrasekharan and others , University of Cochin Vs. N.S. Kanjoonjamma & others and Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others Vs. Shakuntala Shukla and others ). 7) in view of foregoing dicta laid down by the Supreme Court and for the reasons stated hereinabove. this petition is dismissed summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 'AIR 2001 SC 152 2AIR2003SC4023, 3 (2003) 10 SCC 136 4Affi. 1991 SC 2248 5(2SQO)2SCC615 <(199S)3SCCii94 7(I997)4SCC426 8 (2002) 6 SCC 127 ^^f fl f\ t 1 StlB ,:• B% :ISb ^.