TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criteria was reiterated and spelt out. Therefore, no minimum benchmark or a new procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of the selection process. All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection process and were also fully aware that they must possess the basic knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office Operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellant also appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert of computer application and has taken a chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction. Now, while deciding the submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant that judging the suitability of the candidate by laying down the benchmark of basic knowledge of computer operation being sufficient or insufficient is vague, we are of the opinion that possessing of basic knowledge of computer operation is one of the criteria for selection and in order to judge such knowledge, an expert on the subject was available at the time when the candidate was facing the Interview ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the basic knowledge of computer operation. 6. Rule 8 reads as follows: 8. A candidate for direct recruitment to the Service must be - (a) A bachelor of Law from a University established by law in Uttaranchal or any other University of India recognized for this purpose by the Governor. (b) Must possess thorough knowledge of Hindi in Devnagri script. (c) Basic knowledge of Compute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 aforesaid writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for declaration that since the respondents have introduced a new selection criterion during the midstream of the selection, therefore, the selection process was vitiated. It was also submitted that the action of the respondents in failing the appellant only on the ground that he did not have basic knowledge in computer operation should be set aside and quashed and that the appellant should now be inducted into the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 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 prescribed. In Clause 4(c), it was specifically mentioned that the candidate should have basic knowledge of computer operation. In Clause 9 of the aforesaid advertisement, it was stated that the candidate desiring to apply should read the advertisement carefully and apply only if he is satisfied regarding eligibility according to the conditions of advertisement. In paragraph 12(4), it was also mentioned that only those candidates would be called for interview who would be declared succ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nheard 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 selection process is without jurisdiction. 24. In our considered opinion, the reliance on the aforesaid judgments by the counsel appearing for the appellant was misplaced as in the present case the requirement and the necessity for having basic knowledge of computer operation as one of the eligibility criteria and conditions for selection is prescribed in Rule 8 itself. The said clause was also specifically mentioned in the advertisement issued making it clear to all the intending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 18 it was held that it is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. Besides, in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 in paragraph 72 and 74 it was held that candidates who participated in the interview with knowledge that for selection they had to secure prescribed minimum marks on being unsuccessful in interview could not turn aroun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
