The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition of an unsuccessful candidate who appeared for an interview of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination 2020.
The petitioner challenged the final selected list after her name did not appear in the list.
The Division Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Lalita Gupta.
By means of the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the final select-list dated 12.9.2022 issued in furtherance of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination 2020 and has prayed for issuing a direction for conducting the interviews again in accordance with the statutory mandate, stipulation in the advertisement and various judgments of the Supreme Court of India.
The facts of the case are that on 17.12.2020 the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had issued a notification for making selections for filling up 98 vacancies of Addl District Judges/Addl Sessions Judges in Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services.
The petitioner had applied in pursuance of the aforesaid notification and she was declared successful in the Preliminary Examination as also in the Main Examination.
In the Main Examination, only 50 candidates were declared to be successful, whereas the number of vacancies was 91.
On 15.7.2022, call letters were issued to the candidates for interviews, which were scheduled to be held on 1.8.2022 and 2.8.2022 and the candidates were required to report at 08.15 a.m., which time was subsequently changed to 11.30 a.m. through a notice issued on 31.7.2022.
Akansha Rajpoot, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as per the Schedule, 25 candidates were to be interviewed on 1.8.2022 and the remaining 25 candidates were to be interviewed on 2.8.2022, however, on 1.8.2022 only 15 candidates could be interviewed. The petitioner has alleged that each candidate was given only 3-7 minutes for the interview.
The counsel further submitted that as against 25-30 minutes contemplated for conducting interview of each of the candidates, they were interviewed for 3-7 minutes only, which vitiates the selection held in furtherance of the interviews.
Per contra, Gaurav Mehrotra, the counsel for the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, opposed the writ petition on three counts. Firstly, he submitted that the interviews were held on 1.8.2022 and 2.8.2022 and the instant petition has been filed on 19.1.2023, after the final result was published on 12.9.2022. His submission is that the writ petition has been filed after an unreasonable delay and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches.
Secondly, he has submitted that the appointment-letters have already been issued to the selected candidates, whose names find place in the final result published on 2.9.2022 and in case the writ petition is allowed and the final select-list is quashed, it will affect the appointed persons adversely. In such circumstances, the selected candidates are necessary parties to the writ-petition and as all the selected candidates have not been implemented as opposite parties, the writ petition suffers from the defect of nonjoinder of necessary parties.
The third submission of Mehrotra is that the petitioner has made a bald assertion that candidates were not interviewed for sufficient length of time, without any particulars to substantiate her case and to establish as to what prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the duration of her interview.
The Court observed as is evident from the facts stated in the writ petition itself, the petitioner appeared for the interview on 1.8.2022 and immediately after being interviewed she came to know that she had been interviewed for a duration which, as per her, was not as per the provisions contained in the Rules of 1975, yet she elected not to challenge the interview process, rather she waited for declaration of the final result of selection, apparently under a hope that the result of the interview would be favourable to her. The final select-list was published on 12.9.2022, which did not contain the name of the petitioner and it is only thereafter, that she filed the writ petition on 18.1.2023. It appears that although the petitioner was aware that the interview was not conducted in accordance with the Rules, as alleged by her, the petitioner took a calculated chance of her being successful in the interview and chose not to challenge the selection process till after issuance of the final select list. Having taken such a chance and having elected not to challenge the process of interview before issuance of the final select-list, the petitioner cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the selection process after publication of the final select list by alleging that the interviews were not held in accordance with the Rules.
The final select-list was issued on 12.9.2022 and appointment-letters in furtherance of the final select-list have already been issued and posting orders have also been issued. The selected candidates having been appointed would have joined their duties. The writ petition filed seeking quashing of the select-list, without impleading all the selected persons who have thereafter been appointed and have joined their duties, certainly suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties.
“Examining the facts in the case, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court it is apparent that the interviews were held on 1.8.2022 and 2.8.2022, whereas the final select-list was published on 12.9.2022. Thereafter, the selected candidates have already joined their duties. The writ petition has been filed without implementing the selected candidates. Till issuance of the final select-list the petitioner did not make a challenge to the selection process alleging that she was not given sufficient time during the interview, although this became known to her immediately after she appeared in the interview. Apparently the petitioner waited till publication of the final select-list in a hope that she would get selected. Thus, the petitioner took a calculated chance of being successful in the interview, but when the result was not favourable to her, she challenged the select-list. Apparently till issuance of the final select-list the petitioner was not aggrieved by having given insufficient time in the interview and she has acquiesced with the aforesaid situation.
In view of the aforesaid discussion we do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the select-list issued on 12.09.2022,” the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.