1 2025:CGHC:53646 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 529 of 2017 Pankaj Kumar Ambast S/o Shri Anil Sinha, Aged About 31 Years R/o Mandi Beriyar Village/ Post Gamhariya, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Nagar, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Law Department, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Judge, Family Court Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Nagar, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Registrar General, High Court, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Surendra Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Munna Ram Yadav, Aged About 27 Years R/o Sudhir Typing Centre, Khajanchi Toli, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Nagar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey 2 Order on Board 03/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “ 10.I. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of subject matter of the present case, from the respondents. II. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the selection of the respondent no. 4 with all subsequent orders and actions taken in pursuance to the advertisement. III. Any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. ” 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the selection process and selection of Respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Grade-III (AG-III) in the Family Court. The Family Court issued an advertisement dated 14.06.2016 for appointment to the posts of AG-III, Stenographer, and Peon etc. There were three posts advertised for AG-III, out of which one post was kept for General category and two posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribes category. The last date for submission of application form was 11.07.2016. As per the advertisement, the selection procedure for AG-III and Stenographer posts comprised of a written & skill test. It was decided to conduct a written examination carrying 100 marks and a skill test carrying 50 marks. The advertisement specifically provided that marks obtained in the written examination would be irrelevant for final selection. It was further mentioned that candidates who qualify the written test would be called for skill test in the ratio of 1:10 (ten times the number of vacancies). 3 3. The candidates were intimated vide letter dated 21.07.2016 by the competent authority to the effect that written examination and skill test would be conducted on the same day, i.e., 07.08.2016. The petitioner received the letter dated 21.07.2016 and participated in the recruitment process without raising any objection. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and thereafter in the skill test. In the result, the selected candidate, i.e., Respondent No.4, secured 58 marks in the written test and 47 marks in the skill test, total 105 marks. On the other hand, the petitioner secured 66 marks in the written test and 23 marks in the skill test, total 89 marks. Consequently, the name of Respondent No.4 was considered for appointment. 4. Initially, one Naveen Kumar Tripathi was offered appointment, but he did not join. Thereafter, Respondent No.4 was appointed vide order dated 21.09.2016. It is informed by Ms. Jain, counsel for respondent No.3 that Respondent No.4 joined his service on 30.09.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the order of appointment. The present petition was filed by the petitioner on 16.01.2017, about four months after appointment of Respondent No.4. In paragraph 7 of the petition, the petitioner has not provided any reasons for such delay. This is a case where the petitioner participated in the recruitment process, and being unsuccessful, has now challenged the selection process. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that that the petitioner has secured higher marks in the written examination (66 marks as against 58 marks secured by Respondent No.4), therefore, he ought to have been given preference in the selection process. He would further submit that the advertisement clause making the written examination marks "irrelevant" is arbitrary and discriminatory. He would also submit that conducting written examination and skill test on the same day, i.e., 07.08.2016, was improper and contrary to the conditions of the advertisement. He would pray to allow this writ petition. 4 6. On the other hand, Ms. Jain, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 3 would submit that the petitioner participated in the entire recruitment process with full knowledge of the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 14.06.2016 & subsequent communication dated 21.07.2016. It is submitted that the advertisement clearly specified that marks obtained in the written examination would be irrelevant and only marks obtained in the skill test would be relevant for final selection. This was known to all candidates including the petitioner before participating in the examination. It is also submitted that the petitioner was duly intimated vide letter dated 21.07.2016 to the effect that written test and skill test would be conducted on the same day. The petitioner received this letter and participated in both examinations without raising any objection or protest; thus, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process after participating in it voluntarily and without protest, merely because the result is not in his favour. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. The advertisement dated 14.06.2016 stipulated that marks obtained in the written examination would be irrelevant, while marks obtained in the skill test would be considered for final selection. The petitioner was duly communicated vide letter dated 21.07.2016 regarding the schedule of examinations and the fact that both written test and skill test would be conducted on 07.08.2016. The petitioner participated in written examination and skill test without raising any objection or protest at any stage. The result was declared wherein Respondent No.4 secured higher marks in the skill test (47 marks) as compared to the petitioner (23 marks), and consequently, Respondent No.4 was selected. Respondent No.4 was appointed on 21.09.2016 and joined service on 30.09.2016. The petitioner has not challenged the order of appointment dated 21.09.2016. The present petition was filed on 5 16.01.2017, after delay of about four months, without any explanation. . 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar and other (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706) in para – 21 & 25 held as under:- “21. A candidate who has participated in the selection process adopted under the 2015 Rules is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning it thereafter, as held by this Court in the case of Anupal Singh (supra): “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 dated 12-10- 2014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised Notification dated 12-10- 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 v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712], it was held as under : (SCC p. 493, para 9) “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 contesting respondents 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 combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate 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 and subsequently contend that the process of 6 interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.” 57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 395 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1345], it was held as under : (SCC p. 426, para 73) “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 they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper.” 58. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792], it was held as under : (SCC p. 107, para 19) “19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [(2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] …. xxx xxx xxx It was further observed : (SCC p. 149, para 34) ‘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 “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 v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh [(2008) 4 SCC 619 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 9] wherein, it was held as under : (SCC pp. 645-46, para 59) “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 carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] …. The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644], where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise.” 10.The Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Manish Kumar Kashyap and other v. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Public 7 Health and Engineering Department and others (2024 SCC OnLine Chh 1753), wherein Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in para – 8 held as under:- “8. In the matter of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486 in similar fact situation, the Supreme Court has held that a candidate who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot turn around finding the decision unpalatable and question the method of selection. Paragraph 9 of the report states as under:- "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the Petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being Respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The Petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the Petitioners as well as the contesting Respondents 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 combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate 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 and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the Petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition 8 challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a Petitioner." 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the petitioner was duly communicated by the examining authority with regard to the selection process, including the specific provision that marks of written examination would be irrelevant and only marks obtained in skill test would be considered. The petitioner never raised any objection to this mode of selection before participating in the recruitment process. The present petition has been filed belatedly on 16.01.2017, after a delay of approximately four months, without any satisfactory explanation for such delay. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process voluntarily and without protest; thus, the principle of estoppel clearly applies to the facts of the present case. 12. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law, no case is made out to interfere with the selection process. The writ petition is devoid of merit & substance and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim