JADGEO SINGH CHAUHAN; COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SRI CHHATRASAL ZILA PARISHAD UCHCHATAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAY NARHAT LALITPUR Vs. D I O S LALITPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Since the facts of both these cases are inter-connected with the consent of the parties both these writ peti tions are taken up together.

(2.) MR. Ranbir Singh, learned Counsel appears on behalf of MR. Jagdeo Singh Chauhan in Writ Petition No. 16217 of 1997. MR. K. N. Saxena appears for the Committee of Management being Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 16217 of 1997. MR. A. K. Yadav appears on behalf of U. P. Secondary Education Ser vice Commission. MR. I. R. Singh appears on behalf of MR. Suresh Kumar Jain, petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 34982 of 1997.

(3.) IN Writ Petition No. 34982 of 1997 moved by the Committee of Management and Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain a case has been made out in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that on the record of the Commis sion, the name of the petitioner's INstitu tion was not mentioned though they were intimated that an interview would be held on 4th May, 1996 for selection of Head Master of the said School by the District INspector of Schools. Such intimation was described by Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain to have been made under mis-conception. Though statements have been made in directly to show that petitioners were not given opportunity to participate in the in terview, but in fact no specific statement has been made that pursuant to such in timation, the petitioners could not par ticipate in the interview or the petitioner was refused participation in the interview. IN the absence of such specific statement, a normal presumption would be that the petitioner Suresh Kumar Jain was asked to appear in the interview on 4th May, 1996. If he had not participated in the interview, he had done some at his peril. If he had participated in the interview, in that event, he now cannot challenge the wrong spell ing of the INstitution in the advertisement in view of the principle laid down in the cases ofarun Kumar Shukla v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, 1984 (1) UPLBEC 477, and Om Prakash Shukla v. A. K. Shuk la, 1986 Lab. I. C. 790, wherein it has been held that after being unsuccessful, a can didate cannot turn round and challenge the selection on certain technical grounds or on the ground of absence of authority or otherwise.