TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Member (Technical) was reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. However, the notification/advertisement in prescribed format of application and clause '5' thereof, read as follows: Application for the post of Member (Tech.) in CESTAT (1) ..... (2) ..... (3) ..... (4) ..... (5) Whether belongs to SC/ST : (6) ......... (7) .......... to (13) ......... 4 In response to the aforesaid notification/advertisement, the Petitioner in the aforesaid prescribed format on 10.9.2009 applied for the post of Member (Tech.) CESTAT. The Petitioner was called upon to appear for the interview before the Selection Committee in the Judges Lounge, Supreme Court Premises, New Delhi, scheduled for 18.9.2010. The Petitioner accordingly, attended the interview held by the Selection Committee comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain (then sitting Judge of the Supreme Court), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khandeparkar, President, CESTAT, Shri. Sunil Mitra, Revenue Secretary and the Law Secretary. Apart from the Petitioner, 12 other candidates also appeared for the interview which was held on 18.9.2010 as aforesaid. 5 It is a case of the Petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be appointed to any of the vacancies to the post of Member (Tech.), CESTAT. This according to the Petitioner amounts to violation of Articles 14, 16 and 16A of the Constitution of India. 7 The CAT by its judgment and order dated 26.4.2012 in O.A. No.36 of 2011 has rejected the aforesaid contentions raised by and on behalf of the Petitioner. The CAT, in its judgment and order has taken notice that the Selection Committee was chaired by a Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The CAT has noted that there was no reservation policy made applicable to the appointments to CESTAT and that the decision in the cases of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and ors. vs. K.L. Narasimhan & anr. - 1997 SCC (L&S) 1449, Ajay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar - (1994) 4 SCC 401 and Indra Sawhney vs. UOI - 1992 Sup. (3) SCC 217, upon which reliance was placed by the Petitioner, were distinguishable. The CAT has also noted that the applicant participated in the selection process without any protest or demur and thereby took his chance to partake the selection process with full knowledge that his candidature was not being considered against any reserved post.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in the impugned judgment and order passed by the CAT. Further it was pointed out that the notification/advertisement dated 17.8.2009 did not declare that any of the posts of Member (Technical), CESTAT had been reserved for the members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. Despite this, the Petitioner choose to apply and participate in the selection process. Merely because the Petitioner has not been adjudged successful, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the entire selection process. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal & Ors vs. State of J & K & ors. - (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 486. Mr. Shetty contended that the decisions of the Apex Court upon which the reliance had been placed by the Petitioner were distinguishable on facts and the same have been rightly distinguished by the CAT. Finally, Mr. Shetty submitted that the amendment to Rule 21 of the CESTAT Rules was clarificatory in nature and effected out of abundance of caution. On basis of the same, the Petitioner is not right in his contention that the reservation orders applied for recruitment to the post of Member (Tech.), CESTAT. For all these rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., has now turned around and questioned the entire selection process. In such circumstances, relief was rightly denied to the Petitioner. 12 The Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal (supra), at paras 9 and 10 has observed thus: 9. ............... The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla - (AIR 1986 SC 1043), it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E. or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules. 8. ............ 9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent - writ petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done." ..(emphasis supplied) 16 The Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines & ors.- (2009) 5 SCC 515, at para 54 has observed thus: ""54. The Corporation did not violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellant having participated in the selection process along with the contesting respondents witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Education & Research vs. K. L. Narasimhan (supra). This reasoning cannot be accepted. The final pass marks in an examination indicate that the candidate possesses the minimum requisite knowledge for passing the examination. A pass mark is not a guarantee of excellence. There is a great deal of difference between a person who qualifies with the minimum passing marks and a person who qualifies with high marks. If excellence is to be promoted at postgraduate levels, the candidates qualifying should be able to secure good marks while qualifying. It may be that if the final examination standard itself is high, even a candidate with pass marks would have a reasonable standard. Basically, there is no single test for determining standards. It is the result of a sum total of all the inputs - calibre of students, calibre of teachers, teaching facilities, hospital facilities, standard of examinations etc. that will guarantee proper standards at the stage of exit. We, therefore, disagree with the reasoning and conclusion in Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Stage of Bihar (supra) and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research vs. K. L. Narasimhan (supra). ..(emphasis supplied) 20....