SANTOSH BANJARE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Advertisement for the posts of Sanitary Inspector and Cashier was issued by Nagar Panchayat, Nawagarh - respondent No.4 herein and applications were invited in which the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 also appeared and District Selection Committee was constituted and after scrutinising the applications, interview of the candidates was conducted in which the petitioner appeared in the said interview without any demur and when the result of interview was declared on 30-12-2008, respondent No.5 was appointed on the post of Sanitary Inspector. On 3-1-2009, appointment order was issued in favour of respondent No.5. This writ petition was filed on 6-10-2010 questioning the appointment of respondent No.5.

(2.) Mr. Pali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that on 6-10-2010, the petitioner preferred writ petition challenging the selection process and appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Sanitary Inspector principally on the ground that in the interview, 40% marks were reserved and allotted to the candidates including respondent No.5 which is arbitrary and runs contrary to the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Ajay Hasia and others vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, (1981) 1 SCC 722, Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others, (1985) 4 SCC 417 and Satpal and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 206, and also on the ground that the selection process was not clearly indicated in the advertisement.

(3.) Mr. Das and Ms. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents, would submit that the petitioner has participated in the selection process without any protest and he appeared in the interview and upon declaration of result, when he was not selected, he decided to file writ petition with a delay of 1 1/2 years which suffers from delay and laches, as well as the petitioner having participated in the selection process without objection is not entitled to assail the selection process and the subsequent order of appointment of respondent No.5.