V. Ajay Kumar, J
1. The applicant was appointed as a Warder in the Prison Services Department of the respondent-Government of NCT of
Delhi on 01.01.2003. He was promoted to the post of Head Warder in 2017.
2. The respondent No.3-Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), vide No.2/13 dated 25.06.2013, called for Online Applications for
recruitment to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Post Code 38/13) in Delhi Prisons Department, among various other posts.
3. As per the mode of selection provided under the said advertisement, the selection shall be made through One Tier examination scheme and Physical
Endurance Test (PET for short) wherever applicable. For the post of Assistant Superintendent, the advertisement prescribes PET also. The applicant,
who is working as Head Warder and eligible to apply as per the conditions of the advertisement, as a departmental candidate, applied for selection to
the said post of Assistant Superintendent in Delhi Prisons Department along with others.
4. The 3rd respondent-DSSSB, in pursuance of the above referred advertisement of 2/13, conducted a written examination on 09.03.2014 for the post
of Assistant Superintendent under Post Cost of 38/13 and on the basis of the written examination, shortlisted certain candidates for PET, which was
qualifying in nature, and after conducting the PET in respect of the said shortlisted candidates from 16.03.2015 to 22.03.2015; from 12.07.2016 to
13.07.2016; and on 16.02.2018, selected 30 candidates who qualified the PET vide Result Notice No.342 dated 15.10.2015 and subsequent Result
Notice No.350 dated 18.12.2015, Result Notice No.367 dated 14.01.2016, Result Notice No.415 dated 28.07.2016, Result Notice No.511 dated
16.05.2017 and Result Notice No.679 dated 30.06.2018. In respect of the remaining unfilled vacancies, another list of 373 candidates were
provisionally shortlisted for appearing in the PET exam in the ratio of 1:20 of available vacancies, vide its Notice No.705 dated 23.08.2018. The 3rd
respondent-DSSSB vide the said Notice No.705 dated 23.08.2018 shortlisted the name of the applicant also along with others for participating in the
PET scheduled to be conducted in September, 2018.
5. The applicant, who is appearing in person, filed the instant OA seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and select him to the post of
Assistant Superintendent under departmental category without insisting on qualifying/appearing in the PET.
6. Heard the applicant, who appears in person.
7. It is the case of the applicant that before he was appointed as Warder on 01.01.2003, he was subjected to PET and on being qualified therein, only
the respondents appointed him as Warder. He was promoted to the post of Head Warder in the year 2017 and for the last about 16 years, he has been
discharging his duties in the respondent-Prison Services Department and now he is aged about 38 years and now compelling him to compete with
fresh candidates, who are aged between 18 years to 27 years, for the purpose of qualifying for selection to the post of Assistant Superintendent, is
illegal and arbitrary.
8. He further submits that the present Recruitment Rules of the post of Assistant Superintendent were notified in the year 2012 wherein qualifying in
PET was prescribed for the first time for selection to the post of Assistant Superintendent. Prior to the said Rules, the Recruitment Rules notified on
16.06.1995 were in force and in the said Rules, no pre-condition of qualifying the PET was there and following the said rules, certain other
departmental candidates were selected as Assistant Superintendents of Prisons, but in case of the applicant, the respondents are illegally and
arbitrarily compelling him to participate and qualify in the PET.
9. Admittedly, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Superintendent, which are in force and applicable to the applicant and notified in the
year 2012 prescribes the pre-condition of qualifying in the PET for selection to the post of Assistant Superintendent. The 3rd respondent-DSSSB
issued the advertisement No.2/13, in terms of the said rules only and accordingly prescribed the PET for selection to the post of Assistant
Superintendent. The applicant, being fully aware of the rules and of the condition in the advertisement, applied for selection against the said
advertisement and participated in the written examination. Certain others were also selected in pursuance of the said advertisement and in pursuance
of the very same written examination, in which the applicant also participated, and after having qualified in the PET were appointed as Assistant
Superintendents. Now only in respect of the remaining unfilled vacancies of the very same selection, the 3rd respondent-DSSSB shortlisted 373
candidates including the applicant for appearing in PET scheduled to be held in September, 2018. The applicant having applied and having participated
in the written examination after accepting with the conditions in the Recruitment Rules as well as in the advertisement, is estopped from questioning
the said selection process, at this belated stage.
10. In Madan Lal & Others Vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another 1995 SCC (3) 486, it was held as under:-
“….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 and Ors., (AIR 1986 SC 1043, )it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of
three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed
in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitionerâ€.
11. In the circumstances and in view of the settled position of law and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the OA and accordingly
the same is dismissed. No costs.
