Candidate Cannot Complain Of Alleged Violations In Selection Process After Appearing For Interview: Bombay High Court

"It is well settled that a candidate who is called for the interview and takes part in the interview, cannot turn around and pick holes and contend that the selection process was conducted in violation of the guidelines", a division bench of Justices R. D. Dhanuka and M. G. Sewlikar observed.

It thus dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of recruitment process of a co-operative bank and the appointments thereof.

The court also stated that the writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 is not maintainable as the co-operative bank doesn't come under the definition of "State" in Article 12 of the Constitution.

In March 2019, the Sangli District Central Co-operative Bank had advertised for recruitment of 400 posts of Junior Clerk. The petitioners applied for the post and appeared for online exam in September 2019. The petitioners were declared qualified for the interview. The interview was conducted between 30th October, 2019 and 11th November, 2019. Final result was declared on 18th November, 2019.

The petitioners alleged that the recruitment process was in violation of the State Government guidelines and raised grievance before the District Collector. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who reported that the allegations were not true. Hence the present petition.

Advocate Vaibhav Ugle for the petitioners submitted that the answer key for the exam was not published despite repeated requests. Further, he submitted that according to government guidelines, the Bank should have outsourced the online exam to a government empanelled recruitment agency. Instead, it was outsourced to a private agency Maharashtra Institute of Hardware & Software Technology Private Limited (MIHST).

Advocate Umesh Mankapure for the Bank and Advocate Abhijit Desai for MIHST challenged that maintainability of the petition arguing that the Bank does not fall within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Further, the petition is mala fide as the petitioners appeared for the interview and only filed it after they did not succeed in the interview.

The petitioners in a rejoinder said that the State exercises financial and administrative control over the bank so it falls within Article 12 of the Constitution.

The court relied on Apex Court judgments in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage & Ors., and Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India to decide the maintainability question.

It held that the petition is not maintainable as "none of the parameters enumerated by the Supreme Court in the above judgments get attracted so as to make respondent No.4 an instrumentality of the State".

The court still delved into the facts of the case and relied on Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of J & K and Ors and Ramesh Chandra Shah and Ors. v. Anil Joshi and Ors. The court concluded, "a candidate who is declared eligible for the interview, and appears for the interview, cannot complain of the alleged violations in the selection process". Even if the allegation about the non-publication of answer key is true, it is an irregularity and not an illegality.

The parties are also in dispute whether answer key and merit list were published before the interview or after the holding of the interview. The court said these questions of fact cannot be determined under Article 226.

Case no. – Civil Writ Petition No. 923 of 2021

Case Title – Vikram Dhondiram Raskar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 272

Coram - Justice R. D. Dhanuka and Justice M. G. Sewlikar