2010 (10) TMI 1173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an order passed on the same day i.e. 15.9.2010, we removed his name as petitioner from the said petition with a further direction that the aforesaid petition would be considered only so far as Shri Vijendra Kumar Verma is concerned. 3. After passing the aforesaid order, we proceeded to hear the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after hearing the parties at length, we reserved our orders. 4. Leave granted. 5. By this common judgment and order, we now propose to dispose of the appeal in terms of our discussion and reasons recorded herein. The selection of judicial officers for Uttaranchal Judicial Service is governed by a set of rules called the Uttaranchal Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The Rules deal with the procedure and mode of selection, recruitment and appointment in the Uttaranchal Judicial Service comprising group A and B posts. In Uttaranchal Judicial Service, there is a post called Civil Judge (Junior Division). Rule 8 of the said Rules lays down the eligibility criterion that a candidate for direct recruitment to the service apart from holding qualification of Bachelor of Law must possess a thorough knowledge of Hindi in Devnagari script as well as th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as not selected and his name did not appear in the final list of selected candidates. The appellant, however, came to know that he received total of 576 marks together in written examination and in viva voce examination and on the basis thereof in his estimation he should have been selected as persons getting total marks of 568 were inducted into the service. The appellant submitted that to his knowledge and information he was not selected because according to the respondents the appellant did not have basic knowledge of computer operation. The reason for non-selection of the appellant was also disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 against the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the said counter affidavit, it was stated that the appellant was to put to test for determining and ascertaining as to whether he possessed the basic knowledge of computer operation. It is also stated in the said affidavit that an expert in the field of computer was associated for determining, assessing and ascertaining the aforesaid fact and it was found that the appellant did not possess basic knowledge in computer operation. Therefore, he was not selected. 12. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have all along spelt out that the candidate desiring to be appointed to the aforesaid post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have the basic knowledge of computer operation and therefore the same was a part and parcel of the syllabus which was known to each one of the candidates including the appellant and therefore no grievance could be raised in that regard. 18. It was also submitted by him that the appellant having participated in the entire selection process and having specific knowledge that he would be required to have basic knowledge in computer operation and then having taken a chance therein by appearing in the viva voce and facing the questions of the expert on the computer operation, he cannot now turn back and take a stand that the said selection process is vitiated. 19. In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we have considered the records. The advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the posts was published in a newspaper on 16.2.2006. In the said advertisement, conditions of eligibility have also been mentioned in Clause 4 wherein the essential qualifications were prescrib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n gave his opinion that the appellant did not possess the basic knowledge of computer operation. Since possession of such knowledge of computer operation was one of the eligibility criteria for being selected for the aforesaid post of Civil Judge and as the appellant was not found suitable and lacking in basic knowledge of computer operation, he was not selected. The issue is whether such a course adopted by the respondent could be said to be illegal, without jurisdiction and unheard of. 22. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512. In paragraph 25 and 27 of the said judgment, it was said that introducing minimum marks for interview in the midstream of the selection process is illegal. 23. The counsel for the appellant also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 and Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi and Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 104 in support of the contention that minimum benchmark provided for selection during the midstream of the selecti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the Committee. 27. In P.S. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in: (2008) 7 SCC 70, this Court relying on the above principle held thus;   44. ...Apart from the fact that the appellant accepted his posting orders without any demur in that capacity, his subsequent order of appointment dated 15-7-1992 issued by the Governor had not been challenged by the appellant. Once he chose to join the mainstream on the basis of option given to him, he cannot turn back and challenge the conditions. He could have opted not to join at all but he did not do so. Now it does not lie in his mouth to clamour regarding the cut-off date or for that matter any other condition. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, rightly held that the appellant is estopped and precluded from questioning the said order dated 14-1-1992. The application of principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence has been considered by us in many cases, one of them being G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow.... 28. In Union of India and Ors. v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 at paragraph ....