AASHRAY CHAUDHARY | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 6th January 2020
D. Sarojkumari v. R. Helen Thilakom & Ors.
Facts
- The subject of the case is under Kerala Education rules. Respondent No. 1 was working as a part-time Music Teacher in the Light to Blind School, Varkala. The Management of Samuel LMS High School, Parassala, invited applications for filling up the post of Music Teacher on direct recruitment basis. The Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 both applied for the said post. The appellant was given the job after the selection process.
- The Respondent No. 1 raised a plea before the District Educational Officer that since the Management of both the schools are same, she was entitled to be promoted as Music teacher on the basis of her seniority in the Light to Blind School, Varkala. The District officer allowed her plea and held that her case was covered under Rule 43 of Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred as ‘KER’). Aggrieved by this appellant filed an appeal which was rejected by the Deputy Director, Education. Thereafter a revision petition was filed and the main ground raised by Respondent No. 6 (The Church of South India) herein was that the two Schools were separate units and hence Rule 43 of KER are not applicable here which was accepted.
- Thereafter a writ petition was filed by Respondent No. 1 in the High Court of Kerala. The appellants contented before the High Court that Since the Respondent no. 1 had taken part in the Selection process, she could not, after being not selected, be permitted to turn around and claim that the process of direct recruitment could not have been resorted to by the Management of Samuel LMS High School. This objection was overruled by the High Court only on the ground that there can be no estoppels against a statute and the appellant could not be debarred from filing a writ petition. This resulted in the appeal before the Apex Court.
Issues
- Whether the appellant can be allowed to challenge the selection process after she was unsuccessful in getting selected.
What was held
- The Apex Court was of the opinion that the law is well settled on the issue in this appeal. The judgement in the case of Dr. G. Sarna v. University of Lucknow & Ors.[1]In this case the petitioner after appearing for the interview and having not been selected pleaded that the experts were biased. The Apex Court held that the person should have raised the issue of bias of an expert before the interview, after taking a chance at a favourable outcome it is now not open to him to turn around and question the Constitution of the Committee.
- In the Case of Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors[2] the Court held that
“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”
- Similar view was observed in Madras Institute of development Studies and Another v. Dr. K Sivasubramaniyan and others[3]. The Court took note that the Kerala High Court did not note the above mentioned judgments and ignored a well settled position of law.
- In the present case Respondent No. 1 did not raise the objection that the post concerned cannot be filled in by the process of direct recruitment when the advertisement was issued by the Church inviting applications for the said post. Even if she was to be considered for promotion here she should have raised the issue before sitting for the selection process and not after she had failed to get selected.
[1] (1976) 3 SCC 585
[2] (1995) 3 SCC 576
[3] (2016) 1 SCC 454
Leave a Reply