2016 (10) TMI 1177 - SC - Indian Laws

Promotion process upheld by Supreme Court, appellants estopped from challenge. Provisional continuation allowed.

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision in a case concerning the promotion process from Class IV to Class III posts. The appellants were ... Challenging the process of promotion - promotion from Class IV posts to Class III posts in the District Court of Muzaffarpur - Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) (Amendment) Rules, 1998, Rule 6. Held that: - In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [2002 (5) TMI 845 - SUPREME COURT], this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated, He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In the present case, regard must be had to the fact that the Appellants were clearly on notice, when the fresh selection process took place that written examination would carry ninety marks and the interview, ten marks. The Appellants participated in the selection process. Moreover, two other considerations weigh in balance. The High Court noted in the impugned judgment that the interpretation of Rule 6 was not free from vagueness. There was in other words no glaring or patent illegality in the process adopted by the High Court. There was an element of vagueness about whether Rule 6 which dealt with promotion merely incorporated the requirement of an examination provided in Rule 5 for direct recruitment to Class III posts or whether the marks and qualifying marks were also incorporated. Moreover, no prejudice was established to have been caused to the Appellants by the 90:10 allocation. The Division Bench cannot held to be in error in coming to the conclusion that it was not open to the Appellants after participating in the selection process to question the result, once they were declared to be unsuccessful - appeal disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the promotion process from Class IV to Class III posts.2. Applicability of estoppel against the appellants who participated in the selection process.3. Interpretation of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) (Amendment) Rules, 2001.4. Legality of the High Court's administrative instructions vis-à-vis statutory rules.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the promotion process from Class IV to Class III posts:The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court which allowed a Letters Patent Appeal, setting aside a Single Judge's decision that quashed the promotion process from Class IV to Class III posts in the District Court of Muzaffarpur. The Single Judge had held that the written examination should carry eighty-five marks and the interview fifteen marks as per the amended Rules of 2001. The Division Bench, however, reinstated the original order of appointment, emphasizing that the appellants were estopped from challenging the process after participating in it.2. Applicability of estoppel against the appellants who participated in the selection process:The Division Bench held that the appellants, having participated in the selection process without protest, were estopped from challenging it after being declared unsuccessful. This principle was supported by several precedents, including Marripati Nagaraja v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, and Amlan Jyoti Borrooah v. State of Assam. The Supreme Court reiterated that candidates who participate in a selection process cannot subsequently challenge it on finding themselves unsuccessful.3. Interpretation of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) (Amendment) Rules, 2001:The Rules of 2001 stipulated that the written test should carry eighty-five marks and the interview fifteen marks. The Single Judge interpreted Rule 6 to incorporate this requirement for promotions. The Division Bench acknowledged some vagueness in the rules but did not differ from the Single Judge's interpretation. However, it focused on the appellants' conduct of participating in the selection process without objection, thus invoking estoppel.4. Legality of the High Court's administrative instructions vis-à-vis statutory rules:The High Court had issued a communication requiring a fresh written examination with ninety marks and an interview with ten marks, based on its General Letter No. 1 of 1995. The Single Judge held that the statutory rules of 2001, made under Article 309, would supersede the High Court's administrative instructions. However, the Division Bench did not find a glaring illegality in the High Court's process, noting the vagueness in the rules and the lack of prejudice to the appellants.Conclusion:The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench's judgment, holding that the appellants, by participating in the selection process, were estopped from challenging it after being unsuccessful. The Court noted no glaring illegality in the High Court's process and directed that any existing vacancy should allow the appellant to continue provisionally until the next selection process. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.