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 directing the Director of Technical Education to accept the management's proposal to appoint them as Head of the Department. The background reveals that the respondent management initially decided to fill the post by promotion and sent a proposal for approval of the petitioners' appointment. However, before the proposal could be processed, the impugned Government Resolution was issued, pursuant to which advertisements were issued for the post. The petitioners and intervenors appeared for interviews held on 15th and 16th November 2013. The intervenors were found successful, while the petitioners were not. After waiting for nearly two years, the petitioners filed the present petition in May 2015. The legal issues centered on whether the petitioners, having participated in the selection process and being unsuccessful, could challenge the selection process. The petitioners argued that the rules under which the intervenors were selected were not applicable to private polytechnics, and that exceptions to the rule against challenging after participation exist. The court, however, noted the settled principle from Madan Lal v. State of J&K that a candidate who participates in a selection process and is unsuccessful is normally precluded from challenging the process on the ground of 'taking chances'. The court found that the petitioners not only participated but also waited two years before approaching the court, which did not make out a case for departure from the rule. The court held that no case for interim relief was made out, and if the petitioners ultimately succeed, they can be compensated monetarily. The prayer for interim relief was rejected.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Interim Relief - Petitioner challenged Government Resolution dated 10th September 2012 and sought mandamus to accept proposal for appointment as Head of Department - Petitioner participated in selection process, was unsuccessful, and waited two years before filing petition - Court held that the rule in Madan Lal v. State of J&K applies, precluding challenge after participation - Interim relief rejected as petitioner took chances and can be compensated monetarily if succeeds (Paras 3-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim relief challenging the Government Resolution dated 10th September 2012 and seeking mandamus to accept proposal for appointment as Head of Department, given that the petitioner participated in the selection process and was unsuccessful.
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
- Interim relief not granted when monetary compensation is adequate
