UPHJS Exam 2020| 'Can't Challenge Selection Process After Taking Calculated Chance In Interview': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To A Candidate

The Allahabad High Court recently denied relief to an unsuccessful candidate who appeared for an Interview of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination 2020 and challenged the final select list after her name did not appear in the list.

The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted that she took a calculated chance of being successful in the interview, but when the result was not favorable to her, she challenged the select list and thus, her writ plea was not maintainable.

"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 the publication of the final select list in a hope that she would get selected...Apparently, till the 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," the bench remarked.

In this regard, the Court relied upon Apex Court's rulings in the cases of Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 and Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, wherein the Top Court had observed that a candidate, who 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 there was some lacuna in the process.

The case in brief

In the instant case before the High Court, petitioner Lalita Gupta, who appeared for the UP HJC 2020 Exam Interview, challenged the final select list dated 12.9.2022 of the said exam and prayed for conducting the interviews again in accordance with the statutory mandate.

It was her case that as against 25-30 minutes contemplated for conducting an interview of each of the candidates (as per Appendix G of Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules 1975), they were interviewed for 3-7 minutes only, which vitiates the selection held in furtherance of the interviews.

On the other hand, opposing her plea, the counsel for the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad argued that interviews were held on 1.8.2022 and 2.8.2022 and the instant petition has been filed on 19.1.2023, after an unreasonable delay and the same was liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches.

It was also submitted that the selected candidates are necessary parties to the writ petition and as all the selected candidates have not been impleaded as opposite parties, the writ petition suffers from the defect of nonjoinder of necessary parties.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that though it was the petitioner's case that the interviews for the exam were not conducted as per the provisions contained in the Rules of 1975, yet she chose not to challenge the interview process, rather she waited for the declaration of the final result of selection.

"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 Court remarked.

The Court further noted that the writ petition had been filed seeking quashing of the select list, without impleading all the selected persons who have thereafter been appointed and have joined their duties, and hence, the plea suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties.

In view of the above, the Court dismissed her plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: Asim Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent: Gaurav Mehrotra, C.S.C.

Case Title: Lalita Gupta vs. High Court Of Judicature Allahabad Thru. Registrar General And Others [WRIT - A No. - 672 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 45

Click Here To Read/Download Order