ORDER : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s):- “10.1 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash rejection order Annexure P-1 and petitioner may kindly be ordered to be treated as successful and fit for appointed in one of the post for station officer (SI) scheduled tribe. 10.2 That cost of litigation and any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit may kindly also be awarded” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner being the member of scheduled tribe and having requisite qualification submitted online application form for his appointment to the post of Station Officer (SI) pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) by respondent authorities. Thereafter, petitioner was called for physical standard test (PST) and for document verification to be conducted on 17.09.2025 vide Annexure P-1. Petitioner appeared before the respondent authorities for Physical Standard Test on 07.09.2025, where he has been disqualified on the ground that he does not meet the minimum height requirement of 168 cm. He submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities in disqualifying the candidature of petitioner is bad in law and erroneous. It is contended that, in previous advertisement (Annexure P-6) for the post of Home Guard, minimum height requirement was prescribed at 168 cm and relaxation was given to ST category candidate, however, no such relaxation is given in this in this advertisement for the post of Station Officer (SI) resulting disqualification of the Petitioner. In support of his claim, learned counsel places reliance on Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Fire and Emergency Services Rules, 2011 and submits that respondents authorities are duty-bound to adhere to the prevailing reservation rules for SC/ST/OBC and other categories while making appointments or promotions to the subject post. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that advertisement was issued for appointment of various post including the post of Station Officer (SI) in Chhattisgarh Fire and Emergency Services and SDRF, Department inviting applications, from the aspirants having requisite educational qualification meeting physical standards. It is submitted that the advertisement stipulates minimum height of 168 cm for male candidates and a chest measurement of 81 cm (unexpanded) and 86 cm (expanded). However, for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, the chest requirements are relaxed to 76 cm (unexpanded) and 81 cm (expanded). It is submitted that the advertisement stipulates minimum height of 168 cm for male candidates and a chest measurement of 81 cm (unexpanded) and 86 cm (expanded). However, for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, the chest requirements are relaxed to 76 cm (unexpanded) and 81 cm (expanded). He further submits that the physical standard stipulated in the advertisement clearly states that no relaxation shall be granted to any candidate in minimum height. It is further contended that the petitioner is precluded from challenging the terms and conditions of the advertisement as he has participated in this recruitment process. It is argued that time and again, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the aspirant/candidate has appeared in the examination and has participated accepting the conditions of advertisement, he/she thereafter is precluded and restrained from challenging the conditions enumerated in advertisement. He further submits that petitioner was called for the physical standards test and his height was measured through manual and digital machine as 163 cm only, which is below the minimum height of 168 cm as specified in the advertisement. He submits that petitioner was rightly declared disqualified, as he failed to meet the physical standard as stipulated in the advertisement. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, particularly the advertisement (Annexure P-7), reveals that online applications were invited from aspirants in the State of Chhattisgarh for various posts, including Station Officer (SI). It specifies the requisite educational qualification and physical standard, relevant portion of which is as under :- 6. As per the physical standard, male candidates must have a minimum height of 168 cm and chest measurements of 81 cm (unexpanded) and 86 cm (expanded). It further stipulates that no relaxation shall be granted to any candidate in this regard. 7. On the basis of information given in online application by petitioner, he was called for physical standard test, as per physical standard test report (Annexure P-2) his chest was measured as 85.7 cm normally (with 6.6 cm expansion), exceeding requirements, but his height was measured through manual and digital machine as 163 cm only, which is below the minimum height of 168 cm as specified in the advertisement. 8. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan , (2011) 12 SCC 85 , while considering the issue has observed as under :- “29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of Respondent 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 9. The law is well settled that the one who has participated and appeared in the recruitment process cannot challenge the recruitment process as a whole in respect of conditions of advertisement as well as the conditions of recruitment process. 10. The law is well settled that the one who has participated and appeared in the recruitment process cannot challenge the recruitment process as a whole in respect of conditions of advertisement as well as the conditions of recruitment process. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Madan Lal vs. State of J & K reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , has observed 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. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127 , has clearly 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. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 has also held the fact 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. 13. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam reported in (2009) 3 SCC 227 has well settled that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing- fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful. 14. In the cases at hand also petitioner participated in the selection process without any demur. He was fully aware of the conditions enumerated in advertisement of educational qualification and physical standard. However, instead of challenging the advertisement issued on 12.06.2025, he chose to participate in the recruitment process. 14. In the cases at hand also petitioner participated in the selection process without any demur. He was fully aware of the conditions enumerated in advertisement of educational qualification and physical standard. However, instead of challenging the advertisement issued on 12.06.2025, he chose to participate in the recruitment process. After being disqualified in the physical standard test, he then challenged the advertisement's conditions, raising the ground that an earlier advertisement for Home Guard recruitment in 2024, there was relaxation in height for ST candidate. It is not a case of the petitioner that physical standard fixed and mentioned in advertisement is in contravention of service rules. 15. For the foregoing discussions and in light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court I do not find any merit in this petition, which is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed.