KUMAR, CJ. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of delay. The selection process was completed in the year 1998-99. It was challenged by the petitioner in the year 2001 by filing a writ petition in which the petitioner/appellant had set up a case that he had a degree from a university, which ought to have been accepted as a recognised degree and, therefore, the petitioner was eligible and ought to have been considered. Be that as it may, when the selection process was over in the year 1998-99 it could not have been challenged in the year 2001.
(2.) IN our view the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited before us a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Smt. Chanda Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), decided on 2. 08. 2001. However, following decisions of the Supreme Court were not noticed by this Court while deciding Chanda Devi's case. i. Ashok Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2) ii. State of Bihar vs. Mohd. Kalimuddin (3) and iii. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Harish Chandra (4) In Ashok Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (supra), the Supreme Court accepted that the appellant was entitled to weightage of 5% marks on account of being a NCC candidate yet no benefit could be given to him because the selection had already been over and the selected candidates had been given appointments. In State of Bihar & Others vs. Mohd. Kalimuddin & Others (supra), the selection committee had prepared the panel of selected candidates on 19. 01. 1991. The first batch of appointments of 1998 was made from the said list. The relevant service Rule provided that the list of candidates prepared for direct recruitment was to be valid for one year from the date of approval of the project by the selection committee. The life or duration of the select panel was, therefore, one year. Operation of panel beyond the period of one year would, therefore, be contrary to Rule and illegal. The writ petition challenging the selection was filed after expiry of the period of one year i. e. , after the expiry of the life of the panel. Therefore, it was held that no relief could be granted to the petitioner. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Harish Chandra & Others is a case in which the Rules provided that life of the select panel was one year. The High Court had directed the Government to make appointments of candidates on the select list even after its expiry i. e. , after one year. It was held by the Supreme Court that the rights, if any, of persons on the select panel did not survive after one year and, therefore, no directions could be given to the Government to make appointments from the select list. It follows from these discussions of the Apex Court that a finality is to be attached to the selection process. It cannot be allowed to remain open and continuing. if that be so, rights of candidates who acquire eligibility subsequently will be adversely affected and that will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Selection process has a life and it cannot be extended except as permitted by relevant service Rules.
(3.) IN view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, we are unable to subscribe to the judgment rendered in the case of Chanda Devi by this Court. We are of the considered view that once the selection process is over, it cannot be reopened. Once appointments are made interests of appointed candidates come into play. When the number of seats are limited, relief cannot be given to any petitioner without displacing a candidate who has already joined. Therefore, as a matter of sound legal and equitable policy a selection process already completed ought not to be disturbed normally. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. .;