P. Sam Koshy, J
1. The challenge in the instant Writ Petition is to the advertisement dated 05/07/2018.
2. The relief sought for by the petitioner is that the petitioners were engaged as a Guest Faculty in the previous academic session of the 2017/2018 and
they were also serving the department in the previous years also. However, services have been discontinued and fresh advertisement on 05/07/2018
has been issued. The relief sought for by the petitioners is that the respondents should be restrained from replacing one set of Guest Faculty by
another set of Guest Faculties. The stand of the petitioners is that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners in any manner are not
competent or does not have requisite eligibility criteria but it is only the culmination of the contractual period that is coming in the way of the petitioner
and they should be continued for further academic years also till the respondent fill up the post by way of regular recruitment process.
3. During the course of the argument it has been brought to the notice of the of the Court that the petitioners in fact had participated in the selection
process and they were not found meritorious or the petitioners were placed lower in the merit list as compared to the persons selected. The fact that
the petitioners have themselves participated in the subsequent recruitment process and after being unsuccessful, this Court is of the opinion, they now
cannot be permitted to agitate and challenge the advertisement which in due course of time has been acted upon and the selected persons have been
appointed. The claim of the petitioners could have been strong if the petitioners would had approached the Court at the time of the issuance of the
advertisement itself.
4. Supreme Court time and again have reiterated the principle that once when a candidate participates in the recruitment process and is unsuccessful,
he cannot later on turn around and challenge the recruitment process on the basis of his past experience that he has. This view has been taken by this
Court also in a Bunch of writ petitions of similar nature.
5. In 1995 3 SCC 486 in the case of Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors. in paragraph 9, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
9. XXXXXX 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.XXXX
6. Likewise again in 2020 12 SCC 576 in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar in paragraph 23, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
23. XXXXX Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The
Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court Under Articel 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the
merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not
commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.
7. Reiterating the same stand in the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. v. Anil Joshi & Ors. [2013 11 SCC 209 ], the Supreme Court in a case
where the petitioners took part in the selection process and not being successful had challenged the method of recruitment itself not accepting the said
to be a strong ground in paragraph 24 has held as under:-
24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full
knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the
methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error
by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.
8. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that no strong case has been made out by the petitioners for grant of relief which has been sought
for. So far as the judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioners is concerned that again is decided on entirely different factual context and
situations in this case also were different within the factual position as it stands in the present case, therefore, the same is distinguishable on facts
itself.
9. The writ petitions accordingly stands dismissed.
