Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shri K.S. Kadam and another, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of a Government Resolution dated 10th September 2012 and seeking a mandamus to the Director of Technical Education to accept the management's proposal to appoint them as Head of Department. The respondent management initially decided to fill the post by promotion and sent a proposal for approval. However, the impugned Government Resolution was issued, and advertisements were published. The petitioners and intervenors appeared for interviews held on 15th and 16th November 2013. The intervenors were selected, and the petitioners were unsuccessful. After waiting for nearly two years, the petitioners filed the petition in May 2015. The court considered the question of interim relief. The petitioners argued that the rules under which the intervenors were selected were not applicable to private polytechnics and that they had good merits for interim relief. The court, however, noted the settled principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process and is declared unsuccessful is normally precluded from challenging the process on the ground of 'taking chances', relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486. While acknowledging that exceptions exist, the court found that the petitioners' participation, allowing the process to complete, and waiting two years did not make out a case for departure from the rule. The court held that no case for interim relief was made out and that if the petitioners ultimately succeed, they could be compensated monetarily. The prayer for interim relief was rejected.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Head of Department - Government Resolution dated 10th September 2012 - Challenge to validity - Petitioners participated in selection process, were unsuccessful, and waited two years before filing petition - Held that the rule in Madan Lal v. State of J&K applies, precluding challenge after participation and delay - Interim relief denied (Paras 3-7). B) Service Law - Interim Relief - Doctrine of taking chances - A candidate who participates in selection process and is unsuccessful cannot ordinarily challenge the process - Exceptions exist but not applicable due to delay and participation - Held that no case for departure from rule made out (Paras 5-6). C) Service Law - Interim Relief - Adequacy of monetary compensation - If petitioners succeed, they can be compensated monetarily - Held that interim relief not necessary (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim relief challenging the Government Resolution dated 10th September 2012 and seeking mandamus for appointment as Head of Department, given their participation in the selection process and delay in approaching the court.
Final Decision
The prayer for interim relief stands rejected. The court held that no case for interim relief is made out, and if petitioners succeed, they can be compensated monetarily.
Law Points
- Doctrine of taking chances
- Estoppel by participation in selection process
- Exceptions to the rule of estoppel
- Interim relief not granted when monetary compensation is adequate
