PAULINA HEMROM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that Respondent -school and the Interviewing Committee has not selected the present petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in R.C. Balak Prathmik Vidyalaya, Torpa, Distt: Khunti, State of Jharkhand. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is serving as teacher in the very same school since last one decade and, therefore, she ought to have been selected by the Interviewing Committee. The petitioner has also submitted that she is the best and suitable candidate for the appointment in comparison with the rest of the candidates whose interviews were taken by the Interviewing Committee and, therefore, the selection of the candidates i.e. Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 deserve to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be appointed on the said post by issuance of a writ of mandamus.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2, who has vehemently submitted that petitioner, after participating in interview and after taking a calculative risk, merely because she is not selected, several allegations have been levelled against the Interviewing Committee by the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent -State that the petitioner is alleging that she is the best amongst the whole lot, but, it is a bare assertion and that no comparative chart of educational qualification or experience is reflected in the memo of petition by the candidates who are not selected. All the candidates think that they are the best candidates and the petitioner is no exception to this rule. Learned Counsel for the respondent - State has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal and Ors. V/s. State of J & K and Ors. reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 especially in Paras No. 9 & 10 thereof and submitted that petitioner is not selected by the Interviewing Committee and after participation in the interview, by taking calculated chance no such petition can be filed and no relief can be granted by this Court to such petitioner.

(3.) IN view of this decision, delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court once a candidate participates in interview, he is taking calculated chance and subsequently, if the candidate is not selected, no relief can be given to this type of the petitioner. In the facts of the present: case, interview process or method of holding Interview is not at all under challenge. As stated here -in - above, Selection Committee is constituted so that there may not be an arbitrary decision by one member of the Committee. Whole Committee has taken a decision for selection of Respondent Nos. 7 & 8.