High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/9981/2024dismissed

Swati Mehra And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

2026-02-20Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil10 pages

$ %

!""#$!%&%'

( ) *

!./#%0!%&%1 2 )

* 3 2

+ * * + -

64*

!""#$!%&%'

, -

)

64*

!./#%0!%&%1

5 ""#$!%&%'

5 .

!./#%0!%&%1 '(

(

) !""#$!%&%'

$ :

) %%/ ;

)

+ %/ ' %&%'

< !$.

2- 3

3 > ?

- &/ $& %&%.

< !/

1 $% %&%.

< !0

%0 &' %&%'

< !$'

)

2- 3

3 > ?

8 *

$# &% %&%.

2- 3

3 > ?

- @ <

A - 8

33 + B

8 +

;

89 3

&. &" %&%.

) 3- 8+ !

- 8+

3 !

+ 3 <

+ <

%% +

- C +

$& +

8 - $%

3 8

3 8- :

;

2- 4

8- 3

3 %/ &' %&%'

D 3

8 E4

8 *

;

5 $.6%&%.

3 2- 3

9 *

- *

% , *8: +3 ,

; ;

)+3 8 +

)

+C 9-

;

3 !:

+ 89 3

:3 4@8 *

89- 3

;

- D 3

5 $.6%&%.

$# &% %&%.

8 *

- 8: ; -

89- +

* , *8: +3 ,

;

&. &" %&%.

&/ $& %&%.

)

+ < ,

*8: +3 ,

89- )

2 -

+ 9-

+ +

;

)+3

) 3

89 3 ;

+ )

- 8

- !"#$% &'&( )* )+* + < "13. The next aspect of the matter which requires consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners to the effect that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the Advertisement Notice dated 5th May, 2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12th June, 2009, without any justifiable reason. In order to consider this contention, regard may be had to the following case law:

i) In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court authoritatively declared that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently.

ii) In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment for the post of physiotherapist. Candidates who failed to clear the written test presented a writ petition and prayed for quashing the advertisement and the process of

selection. They pleaded that the advertisement and the test were ultra vires the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998. After referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, this Court did not entertain the challenge for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participation in the selection process. The pertinent observations of this Court are as under:

"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."

iii) Similarly, in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, a process was initiated for promotion to Class@III posts from amongst Class@IV employees of a civil court. In the said case, the selection was to be made on the basis of a written test and interview, for which 85% and 15% marks were earmarked respectively as per norms. Out of 27 (twenty@seven) candidates who appeared in the written examination, 14 (fourteen) qualified. They were interviewed. The committee selected candidates on the basis of merit and prepared a list. The High Court declined to approve the Select List on the ground that the ratio of full marks for the written examination and the interview ought to have been 90:10 and 45 ought to be the qualifying marks in the written examination.

A fresh process followed comprising of a written examination (full marks @ 90 and qualifying marks @ 45) and an interview (carrying 10 marks). On the basis of the performance of the candidates, results were declared and 6 (six) persons were appointed on Class@III posts. It was thereafter that the appellants along with 4 (four) other unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the High Court on the administrative side declining to approve the initial Select List. The primary ground was that the appointment process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the written test was required to carry 85 marks and the interview 15 marks.

were clearly put on notice when the fresh selection process took place that the written examination would carry 90 marks and the interview 10 marks. The Court was of the view that the appellants having participated in the selection process without objection and subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process at their instance was precluded. The relevant observations are as under:

"13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that: "18.

It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724)". 13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process.

Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence."

5 ##$1 %&%' 8-

+ -

)

*8: +3 , ; -

3 3 89 3 )

! <

- + - 3 8 +

- : 3 + - 89 3 , ;

)

< + :

8 9- +

! '"

Sham Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No