PYNSKHEMLANG NONGRANG Vs. DIRECTORATE OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been carried against a judgment and order of June 10, 2022 passed on the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the order impugned, the appellant's challenge to the selection process adopted by the Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation of the State in course of appointing two drivers has been repelled.

(2.) The order impugned records that the methodology adopted for the selection process was decided prior to the process being initiated, and as such, there was no change in the rules midstream, so to say. The order impugned notices that the selection process was divided into two parts: a practical driving test and an interview. The Single Bench perceived that the writ petitioner had no quarrel with the practical driving test but was aggrieved only with the manner in which marks were allotted in the interview. The Court observed that it was the settled law that a candidate having taken part in a selection process could not turn around and challenge the same upon being unsuccessful.

(3.) The primary feature that initially engaged the attention of this appellate court was that the appellant herein had secured the highest mark of 84 in the practical examination which tested the candidates' driving skills. However, some other candidates who barely met the qualifying marks to be called for the interview obtained exceptionally high marks in course of the interview to topple, inter alia, the appellant herein and bag the posts. Two of the private respondents herein were appointed and such appointments were made in or about March, 2021.