Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 21.8.2025 vs Himachal Pradesh Public Service … on 21 August, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:29190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3239 of 2024
.
Date of Decision: 21.8.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Pinki
.........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and Anr.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent
No.1/Commission.
Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondent
No.2/HRTC.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Precisely, question, which needs to be determined in the
instant case is whether respondent No.1/Commission, could have
rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of eligibility
after permitting her to participate in the selection process initiated for
selection to the post of Conductor in respondent No.2-HRTC.
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been
highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Surender
Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that once respondent-
Commission had accepted the application form of the petitioner for
appointment against the post of Conductor and thereafter, petitioner
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-2- 2025:HHC:29190
had qualified Written Objective Test, it could not have subsequently,
.
declared her in-eligible on account of her having not passed 10th and
10+2 examination from any school/institution of the State of Himachal
Pradesh and not being Bonafide Himachali .
3. Facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced
on record by the respective parties, are that on receipt of requisition
from Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation,
respondent-commission advertised 360 posts of Conductor vide
advertisement No. 4/4-2023 dated 4.4.2023, under different categories
(Annexure P-3). As per advertisement under the heading of “important
instructions”, instruction No. 10 “essential qualifications”, it came to
be provided that a candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the
post, if he/she has passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from
any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh,
however, such condition would not apply to Bonafide Himachali,
meaning thereby, a candidate desirous of applying for the post in
question either should be Bonafide Himachali or should have passed
matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution
situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh.
4. Petitioner herein, who admittedly belongs to State of
Haryana and has not passed matriculation and 10+2 examination
from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal
Pradesh, submitted online application, which came to be accepted, as
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-3- 2025:HHC:29190
a result thereof, she was also permitted to participate in Written
.
Objective Test, provisionally. Though petitioner passed Written
Objective Test, but at the time of preparation of final merit list, her
candidature was rejected on the ground that neither she is Bonafide
Himachali nor has passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from
school/institution situate within Himachal Pradesh. In the afore
background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant
proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:
“(i) That the impugned note appended in the advertisement
dated 04.04.2023, Annexure-P3, under the head ‘Essential
Qualifications, to the effect that: “A candidate shall be eligible
for appointment to this post, if, he/she has passed
Matriculation and 10+2 from any school/institution situatedwithin Himachal Pradesh provided this condition shall not
apply to Bonafide Himachalis”, may kindly be quashed and set
aside;
(ii) That the impugned Annexure-P9, dated 14.03,2024,
whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post ofConductor has been rejected, may kindly be quashed and set
aside:
(iii) That the respondent No.1-Commission may kindly be
directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the
post of Conductor, Class-III, on contract basis in HRTC and to
recommend her name for appointment against the General
Unreserved Category post of Conductor, forthwith.”
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record of the case.
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-4- 2025:HHC:29190
6. In nutshell, case of the petitioner, as has been projected
.
by Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, is that though petitioner herein is
neither Bonafide Himachali nor has passed matriculation and 10+2
examination from any school/institution situate within the State of
Himachal Pradesh , but once Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed
by the respondent-HRTC for the post of Conductor nowhere provide
that a candidate desirous of applying against the post of Conductor
should have passed matriculation/10+2 examination from any
school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh,
condition, if any, contained in advertisement contrary to the same
especially with regard to eligibility could not have been made ground
by the respondents to reject the candidature of the petitioner, who
pursuant to her having filed application in terms of advertisement
detailed herein above had actually qualified the Written Objective Test.
7. While making this court peruse Recruitment & Promotion
Rules, Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel, vehemently argued that
condition subsequently, claimed to be incorporated in advertisement
in view of the Himachal Pradesh Eligibility for appointment of Class-III
& IV Rules, 2019 (in short “Rules 2019”), notified vide Himachal
Pradesh Department of Personnel (APIII) No. Per (AP) C-C (17)-2/2018
dated 19.11.2019 Annexure R1/1, prescribing therein eligibility to the
effect that a candidate desirous of applying against the post of
Conductor should have passed matriculation and 10+2 examination
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:29190
from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal
.
Pradesh, is of no consequence, rather selection process, if any, for the
post in question could have been conducted strictly in terms of
Recruitment & Promotion Rules governing the post. Besides above,
Mr. Sharma, further argued that Rules 2019 were never adopted by
respondent-HRTC. If it is so, respondent-commission could not have
incorporated eligibility criteria qua the post in question in terms of
Rules 2019. He further submitted that since Recruitment &
Promotion Rules framed by the respondent-HRTC qua the post of
Conductor clearly provides that any citizen of India can apply against
the post in question, right of the petitioner being citizen of India could
not have been curtailed by the respondent-commission by wrongly
prescribing eligibility criteria in terms of Rules 2019, which were
otherwise never adopted by the respondent-HRTC.
8. To the contrary, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1-Commission while justifying the
impugned action of the respondent-commission vehemently argued
that at the first instance, petitioner herein could not have applied for
the post in question on account of her being not eligible, but yet she
uploaded online application alongwith the documents. He further
submitted that since large number of applications are received online,
applicants are permitted to participate in the Written Objective Test,
but scrutiny of documents is done thereafter. He submitted that since
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:29190
during scrutiny of documents, it transpired that petitioner is not
.
eligible in terms of advertisement, wherein it stood specifically
mentioned that either candidate should be Bonafide Himachali or
should have passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any
school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh, no
illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while
rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. He further submitted that
petitioner is otherwise estopped from laying challenge to rejection of
her candidature on account of her having participated in selection
process. To substantiate his arguments, he placed upon judgments
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anupal Singh and Ors. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 173 and in Tajvir Singh Sodhi
and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (2023) 17 SCC
147.
9. Admittedly, bare perusal of advertisement dated
19.11.2010 clearly reveals that a candidate for the post of Conductor
in Himachal Road Transport Corporation should have passed
matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution
situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh or he should have been
Bonafide Himachali, however, in the case at hand, petitioner who
admittedly is neither Bonafide Himachali nor has passed matriculation
and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the
State of Himachal Pradesh. It is also not in dispute that petitioner
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-7- 2025:HHC:29190
despite her being ineligible in terms of eligibility criteria provided
.
under the advertisement uploaded her application online alongwith the
documents which was accepted, provisionally. It is also not in dispute
that petitioner successfully passed Written Objective Test, but her
candidature subsequently came to be rejected on the ground that she
was not eligible for the reason that neither she is Bonafide Himachali
nor has passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any
school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh.
10. Having carefully perused Recruitment & Promotion Rules
(Annexure P-1) framed by the respondent-HRTC for the post of
Conductor, this Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner that for the post of Conductor, a candidate should
have passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any recognized
board or he should be citizen of India. Admittedly, in terms of
Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post in question, petitioner
herein can be said to be eligible for the post in question, but as has
been noticed herein above, respondent-Commission after receipt of
requisition from respondent-HRTC, advertised 360 posts, thereby
specifically providing eligibility criteria under the Rules 2019, which
read as under:
Eligibility for 4. A candidate shall be eligible for
recruitment appointment to Class-III Post(s), if
he/she has passed Matriculation and
10+2 and for Class-IV post (s), if::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:29190
he/she has passed Middle or
Matriculation from any.
School/institution situated within
Himachal Pradesh.
Provided this condition shall not
apply to Bonafide Himachalis.
11. As per aforesaid eligibility, person having passed
matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution
situate
within the State of Himachal Pradesh or
Himachali could have applied for the post in question. At this stage,
Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently
Bonafideargued that eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement is not in
conformity with the Recruitment & Promotion Rules (Annexure P-1)
and as such, same could not have been applied while deciding the
candidature of the petitioner, who, strictly in terms of Recruitment &
Promotion Rules for the post of Conductor, applied in terms of
aforesaid advertisement. As has been noticed herein above, Rules
2019, came to be notified vide order dated 19.11.2019 (Annexure
R1/1), which was further adopted by the Board of Director of
Himachal Road Transport Corporation in its 146th meeting held on
17.3.2020 vide office No. HO:9E-22/95(A)- dated 15th June (Annexure
R-1/2), whereby Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport
Corporation, came to be authorized to adopt all notifications/
instructions issued by the State Government. Though at this stage,
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-9- 2025:HHC:29190
learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that Managing
.
Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, never adopted all
notifications/instructions issued by the State Government and as
such, same could not be made applicable for selection to the post of
Conductor, which came to be initiated vide advertisement dated
19.11.2011, however, this Court is not persuaded to agree with him
for the reason that once Board of Director, Himachal Road Transport
Corporation, in its meeting held on 17.3.2020, had authorized the
Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, to adopt all
the notifications/instructions issued by the government and thereafter
on the requisition made by the respondent-Himachal Road Transport
Corporation, respondent-commission proceeded to advertise 360 posts
of Conductor, this court has reason to presume and believe that
Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, after
having adopted Rules 2019, had sent requisition for filling up 360
posts of Conductor.
12. Even if it is presumed that advertisement was not in
conformity with the Recruitment & Promotion Rules (Annexure P-1),
petitioner herein ought to have laid challenge to the same at the first
instance i.e. immediately after publication of advertisement, however
in the instant case, petitioner fully knowing that she is ineligible in
terms of the eligibility criteria provided under the advertisement,
firstly uploaded her application alongwith documents online and
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
– 10 – 2025:HHC:29190
thereafter, participated in the Written Objective Test, but later on,
.
after rejection of her candidature, she approached this Court in the
instant proceedings, which is wholly impermissible.
13. Though Mr. Surender Sharma, attempted to argue that
once application submitted by the petitioner was accepted and she
was permitted to participate in the Written Objective Test, there was
no occasion, if any, for her to lay challenge to advertisement, but such
plea deserves outright rejection for the reason that from day one,
petitioner was fully aware that she is not eligible in terms of eligibility
criteria provided in the advertisement, but yet she took chance and
applied online.
14. As has been stated by the learned counsel for respondent-
Commission that initially application of the petitioner was accepted
provisionally, but subsequently on verification of documents it came to
be transpired that she is not eligible and as such, her candidature was
rejected. No doubt, Recruitment & Promotion Rules qua the post in
question provide for different eligibility criteria, but there is nothing on
record to suggest that petitioner herein before making application in
terms of advertisement (Annexure P-3) had an occasion to go through
the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of the post in question, wherein
qualification, which petitioner actually possesses, was prescribed,
rather petitioner actually applied strictly in terms of advertisement,
wherein it stood specifically provided that a candidate desirous of
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
– 11 – 2025:HHC:29190
applying to the post of Conductor either should have passed
.
matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution
situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh or he/she should be
Bonafide Himachali. Since petitioner has neither passed any of the
examination nor she is Bonafide Himachali, there was otherwise no
occasion for her to apply for the post.
15. Though at this stage, Mr. Surender Sharma, learned
counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse rules of
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, attempted to argue that
after scrutinizing the online recruitment applications category-
wise/post wise properly by the concerned Branch, the candidates
fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criteria shall be admitted
provisionally and the candidates not fulfilling the prescribed eligibility
criteria shall be rejected, but such procedure, if any, was not followed
by the respondent Commission, however afore plea may not be of
much help to the petitioner for the reason that she was never eligible
to participate in selection process pursuant to advertisement issued in
that regard by the respondent-Commission. Though respondent-
Commission ought to have rejected the application at the first
instance, but it appears that it escaped the notice of respondent-
Commission, but ultimately, at final stage, when documents were
verified, candidature of the petitioner was rejected for the reasons as
noticed herein above.
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
– 12 – 2025:HHC:29190
16. As per reply filed by the respondents, only candidature of
.
such candidates is rejected at the stage of scrutiny who have not
deposited requisite fee in terms of advertisement, whereas in case of
other applicants, document verification is done at later stage. Since in
the case at hand, petitioner approached this Court after rejection of
her candidature coupled with the fact that selection process stands
concluded, she is otherwise estopped from filing petition at hand.
17. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Anupal Singh and Ors. v. State
of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 173, relevant paras whereof read as
under:
“55. Having participated in the interview, the private
respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated
12.10.2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it
was contended that after the revised notification dated12.10.2014, the private respondents participated in the
interview without protest and only after the result wasannounced and finding that they were not selected, the private
respondents chose to challenge the revised notification dated12.10.2014 and the private respondents are estopped from
challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a
person having consciously participated in the interview cannot
turn around and challenge the selection process.
56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be
challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview
and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview
and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
– 13 – 2025:HHC:29190
and Others v. State of J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486, it was
held as under:-
.
“9. ….. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview
conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission
who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contestingrespondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a
chance to get themselves selected at the said oral
interview. Only because they did not find themselves to
have emerged successful as a result of their combinedperformance both at written test and oral interview, they
have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a
rcandidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the
interview, then, only because the result of the interview is
not palatable to him, he cannot turn round andsubsequently contend that the process of interview was
unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly
constituted.”
57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6
SCC 395, it was held as under:-
“73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the
interview in this background, it is not open to the
appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when theyfailed at the interview and contend that the provision of a
minimum mark for the interview was not proper.”
58. In Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and
Others (2007) 8 SCC 100, it was held as under:-
“19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla
(2002) 6 SCC 127, it was further observed:-
“34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any
estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts
but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a
candidate appears at the interview and participates
therein, only because the result of the interview is not::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
– 14 – 2025:HHC:29190
‘palatable’ to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently
contend that the process of interview was unfair or there.
was some lacuna in the process.”
59.Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo and
Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others (2008) 4 SCC 619
wherein, it was held as under:-
“59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful
candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection
process. There are of course the exceptions carvedout by this Court to this general rule. This position
was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in
r Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100
……The Court also referred to the judgment in Om
Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986Supp SCC 285, where it has been held specifically
that when a candidate appears in the examination
without protest and subsequently is found to be notsuccessful in the examination, the question of
entertaining the petition challenging such
examination would not arise.”
60. Before the declaration of the result of the written
examination on 15.09.2014, the State Government by
its Government order dated 20.08.2014 revised the
requisition thereby revising the number of vacancies
in different categories. UP Public Service Commission
issued Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014
specifically mentioning the number of vacancies to be
filled up in various categories in accordance with the
requisition sent by the State Government. The said
Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 published by
UP Public Service Commission reads as under:-
“UPPSC
INTERVIEW PROGRAMME::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
– 15 – 2025:HHC:29190
Month October/November/December, 2014 (24)
OFFICE MEMORANDUM.
98. Post Subordinate Agricultural
Service Class III (Provisional
Asstt. Group C) Agricultural
Deptt. U.P.
Reservation October – 27, 28,29, 30
November – 05,
2515 posts – Non-reserved 07, 10, 11, 12,
1882 posts – SC 13, 14, 15, 17,
201 posts – ST 18, 19, 20, 21 22,
2030 posts – OBC 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Pay Scale Rs.5200-20200/- December – 01,
Grade Pay Rs.2400/- 02, 03, 04, 05,
06, 08, 09, 10,
Advertisement No.A-5/E- 11, 12, 15, 16,
1/2013 17, 18, 19, 20,
r Last Date: 21.11.2013 22, 23, 24, 2014
Before 10.00 a.m.Dt. 12.10.2014″.
It is thus clear that the candidates who appeared in
the interview were well aware about the
modification/revision in number of vacancies of
Technical Assistants in different categories. The
private respondents/intervening applicants have
appeared in the interview with their eyes wide open
regarding the modified vacancies to be filled up in
various categories of the posts. Having appeared in
the interview without any demur or protest, it is not
open to the candidates to challenge the selection
process on the ground that there was modification in
the number of vacancies in different categories and
they are estopped by the principle of estoppel from
challenging the same.
61. The private respondents knew that by the revised
notification dated 12.10.2014, the number of
vacancies of different categories have been changed
and knowing the same, they participated in the
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
– 16 – 2025:HHC:29190
interview and have taken a chance and opportunity
thereon without any protest. Having participated in
.
the interview and having failed in the final selection,
it is not open to the private respondents to turn
around and challenge the revised notification dated
12.10.2014 and the revised requisition of the number
of vacancies in different categories. Having regard to
the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the
High Court should not have granted any relief to the
private respondents/intervenors.”
18. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Tajvir Singh Sodhi
and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (2023) 17 SCC
147, relevant paras whereof read as under:
“38. 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 criteriaenshrined in the Advertisement Notice dated 5th May, 2008
was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12th June, 2009, withoutany justifiable reason. In order to consider this contention,
regard may be had to the following case law:
38.1 In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. 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.
38.2 In Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. 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::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
– 17 – 2025:HHC:29190
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
rpart 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 theadvertisement 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 byentertaining the grievance made by the respondents.”
38.3 Similarly, in Ashok Kumar vs. 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
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
– 18 – 2025:HHC:29190
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. This
Court dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the appellants
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 principlethat 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 wouldnot 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::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
– 19 – 2025:HHC:29190
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).”
19. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made
herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds
no force in the present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed
being devoid of any merit. All pending applications stand disposed of.
Interim direction, if any, stands vacated.
August 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit)
r Judge
::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
[ad_1]
Source link