JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Verma Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.
2. The petitioners; four in number are challenging the selection of respondents No. 3 to 11 on the post of Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis in the District Fatehpur vide appointment order dt. 12.7.1996 and also the order rejecting the petitioners' representation dt. 20.1.1997 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).
3. The brief facts in the writ petition are that six vacancies of Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis in Collectorate, Fatehpur were notified in the Collectorate Fatehpur on 7.7.1996 and in pursuance thereof the petitioners and other candidates including the respondents No. 3 to 11 appeared in the said selection. The petitioners were not selected and the selected candidates were appointed by the respondents against which the petitioners filed writ petition No. 32070 of 1996 which was disposed of by the order dt. 14.10.1996 directing the petitioners to raise all their grievances by means of a representation before the District Magistrate, Fatehpur who was required to decide the same by passing an appropriate order. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the petitioners made representation before the District Magistrate, Fatehpur raising following grounds.
i) The vacancies ought to have been advertised in newspapers but they were only notified on the Notice Board of the Collectorate.
ii) About 800 candidates applied in pursuance of the requisition. Type test was conducted by calling candidates in various batches of 25 each and thereafter interview was conducted.
iii) Without declaring final result, eight candidates were selected and four were kept in waiting list. As per Rule 23 no eligibility or suitability list was prepared.
iv) The candidates having no knowledge of typing have been selected.
v) A number of candidates residing outside the State of U.P. and belonging to the State of Bihar have been selected.
4. The aforesaid representation has been considered by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur and vide his order dt. 20.1.1997 he has rejected the said representation recording the following findings.
i) The requisition for vacancies was notified on the Notice-Board of the Tahsil of District Fatehpur and there was a wide publication resulting in 800 applications which shows that the allegation of lack of proper publication in incorrect.
ii) The candidates belonging to various reserved categories Namely OBC, SC/ST applied showing that the reservation provisions have been taken into consideration.
iii) 104 names were received from the Employment Exchange.
iv) 302 candidates actually participated in the selection and typing test and interview were held as per Rules.
v) Till the date of appointment, no complaint in respect of the selection was received by the District Magistrate Fatehpur showing that the complaint raised subsequently was an afterthought and by the unsuccessful candidates.
vi) The petitioners had also participated in the selection with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances and therefore it cannot be said that there is any error in the selection proceeding on account of any violation of the Rules.
vii) The allegation that the selected candidates lack typing knowledge is also incorrect.
viii) There was no bar for the candidates residing outside U.P. for applying in the aforesaid selection and the candidates have been considered and selected as provided under Rules.
5. In this petition the petitioners have repeated the same grounds but adding one more submission that 35% vacancies were liable to be filled up by absorption of Seasonal Collection Amins but all have been filled in by direct recruitment thus the entire selection is vitiated in law.
6. The contesting private respondents have filed counter-affidavit wherein they have justified the entire selection and the orders passed by the District Magistrate on the representation of the petitioners. The allegations of irregularities committed for the selection have been denied.
7. Similarly on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 also a counter-affidavit has been filed wherein the allegations of irregularities in the selection have been denied.
8. It is not disputed by the petitioners that various grounds which they have raised in the petition as alleged in the writ petition were never complained by the petitioners before declaration of the final result. The petitioners have actually participated in the selection with full knowledge and till they were declared unsuccessful and the respondents- no. 3 to 11 were appointed on the post in question, they did not raise any grievance. Having once taken chance for appearing in the selection, it is not permissible to the petitioners to challenge the selection on the ground that the vacancies were not notified widely or the selection was not conducted properly.
9. In the case of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 1995 (2) JT 291, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that once a person has taken a chance in the selection can not resile back subsequently after having found himself unsuccessful and can not be allowed to challenge the entire selection.
10. In the case of Union of India & Another versus N. Chandrasekhar and and Ors. , the Apex Court has held as under:-
It is not in dispute that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report.
11. In the case of Utkal University Etc. v. Dr. N.C. Sarangi and Ors. wherein it was held as under :-
Both the University as well as the selected candidate have pointed out that this fact was known to the first respondent throughout. He did not, at any time, object to the composition of the Selection Committee. He objected only after the selection was over and he was not selected. This would amount to waiver of such objection on the part of the first respondent.
12. In the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla , the Apex court has held as under:-
The law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result v the interview is not "palatable" to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.
13. Following the judgments of the Apex Court, some of them referred to hereinabove. A learned single judge of this Court has also taken the same view in the case of Kavindra Kumar v. Deputy Inspector General and Ors 2003(1) ESC 235 wherein it was held as under:-
It is thus held that these writ petitions, challenging the criterion for promotion, are not maintainable at the instance of candidates who have participated in the selection without raising any objection.
14. In these circumstances, in my opinion since the petitioners have taken their chance by appearing in the selection without any objection they cannot challenge the same after declaration as unsuccessful.
15. So far as the plea of mala fide is concerned there is no material at all on record to substantiate the allegations of mala fide. In the absence thereof the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that the selection is vitiated on account of mala fide.
16. In the entirety of the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the selection held by the respondent is vitiated on account of any irregularities. Accordingly, the writ fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.