Himachal Pradesh High Court
_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 10 December, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2801 of 2025 Judgment reserved: 02.12.2025 .
Date of Decision:10.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Yog Raj .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ... Respondents _______________________________________________________ of Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the Petitioner: rt Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
Mr. Narender Sharma and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 to 16. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Precisely, the question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand, is that "whether petitioner's right to seek benefit of reservation under the 4% quota for persons with disabilities in batch-
wise selection to the post of JBT could have been denied by the respondent-State on the pretext that posts reserved for persons with disabilities under 4% quota shall be filed up separately by the Department of Social Justice & Empowerment"?.1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 2
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev .
Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, is that 187 posts of JBT reserved for Persons with Disabilities, proposed to be filled up by the Department of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh vide Annexure P-6 are required to be filed up on batch-wise of basis strictly as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules (for short "R&P Rules) framed by the respondent-Department for the post of Junior rt Basic Teacher Class-III(Non-Gazetted) in the Department of Elementary Education, but respondents, without amending the R&P Rules, have devised a new method for filling up the said posts under the quota reserved for the persons with disabilities by inviting applications from all the persons belonging to the said category, who thereafter shall be selected on the basis of marks to be allotted on the basis of essential qualifications prescribed in the R&P Rules and the percentage of their disabilities, as a result thereof, petitioner, who, though as per R&P Rules, possesses requisite qualification, but was waiting for his turn for appointment on batch-wise basis against a seat reserved for persons with disabilities, is now compelled to compete with the candidates, who though may be eligible under the disability quota, but have recently acquired the educational qualification otherwise prescribed in the R&P Rules.
::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 3.
3. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner argued that once in terms of R&P Rules, 50% posts are required to be filled up on batch-wise basis, coupled with the fact that there is a specific provision in the R&P Rules for of reservation to various categories including persons with disabilities, there was no occasion for the respondents to adopt all together new rt method of selection, which is detrimental to the interest of hundred of persons belonging to the said category, who otherwise have been waiting for their turn to come on batch-wise basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that till the time R&P Rules are not amended qua specific provision providing therein reservation in the selection of batch-wise basis, respondents otherwise could not have resorted to altogether new procedure for offering appointments to the persons with disabilities directly against the backlog of 187 posts.
4. While making this Court peruse the material adduced on record, Mr. Bhushan, further submitted that in past, posts reserved for various categories, including persons with disabilities, were being filled up on batch-wise basis, but now suddenly with a view to favour some of the candidates near and dear to the officials responsible for taking totally uncalled for decision, respondents invited applications from the persons with disabilities for filling up of 187 posts under the ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 4 said category, which otherwise could not have been done in the face of R&P Rules. While referring to Clause 16 of R&P Rules, Mr. .
Bhushan submitted that appointments to the service shall be subject to orders regarding reservation in the service from Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes/other Backward Classes/other categories of persons issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government from time to of time, meaning thereby persons with disabilities shall also get benefit of reservation in the batch-wise selection, but such right has been rt attempted to be taken away by issuance of executive instructions, which otherwise cannot override R&P Rules framed under Article 309 of Constitution of India.
5. Explicitly, the facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that the respondents had framed R&P Rules for the post of JBT, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) vide notification dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure P-1). Column No.10 of the said Rules provides that 100% of the posts of JBT are to be filled by direct recruitment on a regular basis or by recruitment on a contract basis, as the case may be, in the following manner:-
"(a) 50% through Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.
(b) 50% in batch wise basis through Deputy Director of Elementary Education of the district concerned."
6. It is apparent from the aforesaid Rules that the posts of JBT are to be filled up 50% by direct recruitment and 50% on batch-
basis. In furtherance of the R&P Rules, respondent No.1 issued ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 5 communication dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P-2) to all the Deputy Directors of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby as .
many as 1161 posts of JBTs were notified to be filled up on batch-
wise basis. Bare perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that afore posts were intended to be filled up from amongst various categories i.e. Gen, EWS, Gen( WFF), OBC,OBC(WFF) SC, of SC(BPL), SC (WFF), ST(BPL) and ST( WFF).
7. It is not in dispute that the selection process initiated rt pursuant to aforesaid notification has culminated qua all posts and filled up strictly on batch-wise basis by preparing the merit list in terms of Clause 4 of above mentioned communication. Clause 4 of the communication reads as under:-
4. Any other i) The batch-wise merit/inter-se-
information seniority of a particular batch shall be determined on the basis of marks obtained in the diploma/course of Junior Basic Teacher(by whatever name known).
In case, the marks obtained in diploma/course by two or more candidates are same, the inter se merit would be decided on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2 level and if there is still a tie, the candidate senior in age would be placed above the junior in the merit/inter-se seniority. In case the candidates have same score, the candidate senior in age would be placed above the junior in the merit.
8. Petitioner herein has completed his Junior Basic Teachers (JBT) training from DIET, Solan in the year 2012-13 (Annexure P-3) and has also qualified the JBT Teacher Eligibility Test on 27.04.2016 (Annexure P-4). Besides above, petitioner is a ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 6 physically disabled person, having locomotor disability to the extent of 45% (Annexure P-5). On account of his having completed JBT .
training in 2012-13 batch, coupled with the fact that he has already qualified JBT eligibility test on 27.04.2016, petitioner is aspirant to the post of JBT in the category of physical disabled person.
9. It is also not in dispute that respondent-State has of provided 4% reservation for persons with disabilities. The entire controversy in the case at hand revolves around the fact that 187 rt posts of JBT, reserved for the persons with Disabilities(PwD) category, were decided to be filled up by the respondents straightway by inviting applications of all eligible candidates falling in the afore category in respect of their domicile district (Annexure P-6). Pursuant to afore decision taken by the respondents, counseling was to be conducted w.e.f.17th to 20th December, 2020 by the Selection Committee constituted at the Directorate level. .
10. Though, vide aforesaid communication, it has been apprised that the appointment to the post of JBT shall be made purely on the basis of existing R&P Rules read with the NCTE norms and guidelines issued from time to time, but precise grouse of the petitioner is that the posts falling in the share of persons with disabilities could only be filled up 50% on batch wise basis, whereas the remaining 50% are required to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. However, close scrutiny of aforesaid document(Annexure ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 7 P-6) reveals that though a candidate desirous of seeking appointment in terms of aforesaid communication must possess essential .
qualifications as have been provided in the R&P Rules, but his suitability against the post in question is to be assessed by the Committee as per following parameters:
Sr. No. Remarks Maximum Marks
of
1. Weightage for essential educational qualification as per 10(Ten)
the R&P Rules (% of marks obtained in educational qualification prescribed for the posts would be divided by 10)
2. Weightage for maximum disabilities as certificate by the rt 6(six) Medical Board/ Authorities.
(40% to 59%)=2 marks.
(60% to 79%)=4 marks.
(80% to 100%)=6 marks.
3. Weightage for maximum additional qualification (% of 4(Marks) marks obtained would be divided by 25)
4. Belonging to notified Backward Area or Panchayat, as 1 (One) the case may be
5. Land less family/family having land less than 1 Hectare 1(One) to be verified by the concerned Revenue Authority
6. Non employment certificate to the effect that none of 1(One) the family member is in Government/Semi Government
7. BPL family having family annual income (for all 2(Two) sources) below Rs.40,000/- or a prescribed by the Govt. from time to time.
8. Widow/divorced/destitute/single Woman. 1(One)
9. Single daughter/Orphan 1(One)
10. Training of at least 6 months duration related to the post 1(One) applied for form a recognized University/Institution.
11. Experience upto maximum of 5 years in Govt./Semi 2 (Two) Govt. organization relating to the post applied for (0.4 mark only for each completed, year in case of Class-III)
11. Pursuant to aforesaid decision taken by the respondents, all the candidates belonging to the category of persons with disabilities can apply for 187 posts falling in the category of persons with disabilities and their suitability/selection shall be made on the basis of parameters, as detailed hereinabove.
::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 812. The case of the petitioner is that if the aforesaid new procedure adopted by the respondents is permitted to sustain, he as .
well as other similarly situate persons, who have been waiting for their turn for selection on batch-wise basis may suffer. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that very purpose and object of making selection on batch-wise basis is to ensure that every person possessing of requisite qualification, as provided under R&P Rules framed for the post in question, is considered and given appointment against the rt post in question on batch-wise basis. He submitted that in case procedure as enshrined in Annexure P-6, is permitted to be adopted by the respondents, very purpose and object of making batch-wise selection would be frustrated, rather in that situation, persons with disabilities, who have recently completed their educational qualification for the post in question may have an edge over the candidates like petitioner, who acquired requisite qualification for the post in question years back. He submitted that since parameters for evaluating papers written by the candidates undergoing the JBT course were altogether different 10 years back, whereas now on account of advancement in education as well as technology, some of the candidates, who admittedly are persons with disabilities, may have obtained more marks than the petitioner in the basic qualification, as a result hereof, they shall be getting more marks than the petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons during ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 9 evaluation. He further submitted that very purpose and object of providing 4% quota is to ensure that persons with disabilities are .
provided job, but now respondents by issuing instructions as contained in Annexure P-6 have attempted to create class within a class by assessing and evaluating the persons with disabilities on the basis of their percentage of disability, which is not permissible.
of
13. To the contrary, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while justifying the impugned action of the respondents, rt whereby a decision has been taken to fill up all posts falling in the category of persons with disabilities, submitted that present petition is not maintainable for the reason that petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings after his having participated in the selection process conducted in terms of Annexure P-6. He submitted that since petitioner participated in the selection process in terms of Annexure P-6, but was unable to secure place in merit list, he is estopped from filing the present petition, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases. He further submitted that there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to amend R&P Rules for the post in question because 50% posts of the JBT are being filled up on batch- wise basis, wherein petitioner can always seek appointment under general category.
14. While referring to the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, learned Advocate General submitted that at the initial stage of ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 10 recruitment, the posts reserved for three categories through horizontal reservation namely Persons with Disability with 4% reservation, .
Sportsman with 3% reservation & Ex- Serviceman with 15% reservation, respectively are identified and segregated. He submitted that afore posts are out of the purview of Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (now Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog), of hence a special recruitment process through respective departments has been initiated vide letter dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure R-1). He rt submitted that remaining 78 posts will be advertised by bifurcating them in 50% each batch-wise and through Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog. He submitted that since the posts for above mentioned horizontal reservation qua the aforesaid three categories are already identified and segregated, no further reservation is provided for these categories while making recruitment on batch-wise basis or Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog. He submitted that in case the plea of the petitioner is accepted then these three categories will get the benefit of the reservation twice, which is not permitted. He submitted that persons with disabilities may apply and participate for the remaining 78 seats under respective vertical reservation categories or remaining horizontal categories such as SC, ST, UR(WFF), SC(BPL), SC (WFF), OBC(BPL), OBC(WFF) ST(BPL) and ST( WFF) etc. He submitted that direct recruitment for the post of JBT is being strictly made as per R&P Rules for the post of JBT ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 11 notified on 22.09.2017. While referring to Rule 16 of the R&P Rules, he submitted that the reservation is subject to the orders of the .
Government issued from time to time to regulate the quantum as well as procedure of appointment of horizontal categories. Learned Advocate General further submitted that respondents vide advertisement dated 27.11.2024 decided to fill up 187 posts of JBTs of from persons with disabilities quota in the respondent-Department. He submitted that detailed instructions regarding filling up the aforesaid rt posts were also annexed with the said advertisement. The instructions mentioned at Sr. No.4 clearly lays down the parameters on the basis of which the distribution/ awarding of marks to the PWD (PHH) candidates is to be done. He submitted that petitioners were well aware about the parameters fixed for awarding marks to the PwD (PHH) categories before the selection committee and all the candidates were asked to bring the certificates in support of the parameters fixed for the allotment of marks under the said categories at the time of counseling. However, if he was aggrieved of aforesaid decision of the respondents, there was no occasion, if any, for him to appear in counseling. He submitted that petitioner appeared in the counseling in accordance with the instructions mentioned at Sr. No.4 and has also submitted the documents at the time of counseling, therefore, the doctrine of estoppel is applicable against the petitioners to challenge the counselling/selections process. Lastly, learned ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 12 Advocate General submitted that otherwise also, no prejudice, if any, can be said to have been caused to the petitioner because in terms of .
decision as contained in Annexure P-6, petitioner is eligible to participate for the post reserved for persons with disabilities. He submitted that decision contained in Annexure P-6 clearly reveals that persons with disabilities shall only be appointed against the 187 posts of reserved for persons with disabilities, but as per merit prepared on the basis of the evaluation to be done by the selection committee on the rt basis of the parameters laid down in the procedure as contained in Annexure P-6. He submitted that though petitioner had been waiting for his selection on batch wise basis w.e.f. 2016, whereas it was an opportunity for him to get selected against the post reserved straightway on the basis of his qualification as well as other parameters. He further submitted that there is possibility that to get benefit of reservation in batch wise selection, petitioner may have to wait for some more years, especially when it is not in dispute that 50% seats out of the total seat reserved for persons with disabilities are to be filled up by direct recruitment in terms of R& P Rules and out of 50% same shall be further distributed amongst various sub categories of persons with disabilities and it is not necessary that petitioner falling in the category of locomotor shall get an opportunity to be selected against the seat every time on batch wise selection. He further submitted that otherwise also no challenge has been laid to the afore ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 13 policy decision of the respondent-State to fill up seats reserved for the persons with disabilities straightway without resorting to the procedure .
of batch wise selection by the petitioner and as such, same cannot be interfered with at this stage. He further submitted that otherwise very purpose and object of aforesaid policy decision taken is laudable and in the interest of candidates belonging to the category of persons with of disabilities, who straightway without waiting for their selection on batch-wise basis can seek appointment rt against this category by applying for such posts, which shall be filled up on the basis of requisite qualification as per R&P Rules as well as other parameters provided by the selection committee for evaluating interse merit of candidates belonging to the category of persons with disabilities.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, there cannot be any dispute that R&P Rules framed for filling up the post of JBT provides 50% of the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% are to be filled up batch-wise basis. 50% posts, which are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment are filled on the basis of advertisement issued by Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog and the remaining 50% are required to be filled up on batch-wise basis, meaning thereby academic batch of a particular year, as per its turn, would be considered for appointment against the posts in question.
::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 1416. The very object and purpose of filling up the post on batch-wise basis is to ensure that person possessing requisite .
qualification for the post in question is given appointment at one point of time, subject to his fulfilling the eligibility criteria as laid down in the R&P Rules. A candidate possessing the requisite qualification for the post in question, besides waiting for his turn to come on batch-wise of basis, can also participate in the selection process, if any, initiated by Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog for filing up 50% posts on the rt basis of direct recruitment.
17. It is also not in dispute that initially, certain percentage of posts was reserved for the categories falling in vertical reservation, but subsequently, afore benefit of reservation came to be extended to horizontal categories such as SC, ST, UR(WFF), SC(BPL), SC (WFF), OBC(BPL), OBC(WFF) ST(BPL) and ST( WFF). It is also not in dispute that at initial stage of recruitment, the posts reserved for three categories through horizontal reservation, namely Persons with Disability (PWD) with 4% reservation, Sportsman with 3% reservation & Ex- Serviceman with 15% reservation, respectively was also being filled on batch-wise basis in terms of the R&P Rules, however, vide order dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure R-1), Government of Himachal Pradesh kept four categories i.e. appointment on compassionate grounds, against 3% sportsperson quota, appointment from amongst the specially abled persons, posts reserved for Ex-servicemen and ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 15 recruitment on batch-wise basis as per specific method provided in the respective recruitment rules, out of the purview of HPSCC (now .
HPRCA). Pursuant to aforesaid decision, respondent-State issued office order dated 26.12.2019(Annexure R-4), thereby according approval for the constitution of Special Selection Committee for selection of Persons with Disabilities (Blind and Low Vision) against of all fresh and backlog posts in Class-III & IV posts in all the Government Departments. Vide advertisement dated 27.11.2024, rt respondents decided to fill up 187 of posts of JBTs from the Persons with Disabilities quota across the State of Himachal Pradesh. After issuance of aforesaid advertisement, the respondents also issued a corrigendum, whereby afore instruction was substituted by the following provision:-
" In continuation of this Directorate Advertisement dated 27.11.2024 of recruitment of JBT from the all categories of the PwD quota, in place of point 4(i) of detailed instructions the following provision shall stand substituted:
" If more than one candidate scores equal number of marks out of 30 marks criteria as per Government of Himachal Pradesh(Social Justice & Empowerment Dept) vide letter No.SJE-B(15)--03/2014-1 dated 28th August, 2017, than the merit would be determined on the basis of percentage (%) of the D.El. ED/JBT course and in the event of D.Ei.Ed/JBT course is being same, the inter-se merit would be decided on the basis percentage (%) of marks obtained in 10+2 level and if there would be still a tie senior in age would get precedence over junior in age."
18. As per Government instructions dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure R-1), the posts to be filled up under the sports quota and Persons with Disabilities quota, Ex-Servicemen quota on batch-wise ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 16 basis as per the method provided in the respective R&P Rules came to be excluded from the purview of the HPSCC(Now HPRCA).
.
19. Pleadings adduced on record by the respondents reveal that vide office order dated 27.12.2017, the Department of Personnel accorded approval for the constitution of a Special Selection Committee for the selection of all categories of Persons with of Disabilities (Visually impaired, hearing impaired & locomotor disabled) for Class-III and Class-IV posts/services and also Special Selection rt Committee for District Level Cadre (Annexure R-3). Vide office order dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure R-4), Department of Personnel accorded approval for the constitution of Special Selection Committee for selection of Persons with Disabilities (Blind and Low Vision) against all fresh and backlog posts in Class-III & IV posts in all Government Departments in supersession of the Departmental Selection Committee constituted vide office order dated 27.12.2017 in respect of visually impaired category.
20. The Social Justice and Empowerment Department, which is the regulatory Department for enforcing the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 vide its letter dated 28.08.2017, conveyed the permission of the Government regarding the parameters for awarding of marks qua the posts reserved for the Persons with Disabilities (Annexure R-5). Aforesaid parameters fixed by the Department of Social Justice & Empowerment were ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 17 subsequently incorporated in instruction No.4 by way of corrigendum in advertisement dated 27.11.2024. In terms of advertisement dated .
27.11.2024, respondent-Department invited applications from the Persons with Disabilities for filling up 187 posts reserved for their category. Admittedly, the petitioner herein, who belongs to the category of Persons with Disabilities participated in the aforesaid of selection, but was unable to secure a place in the merit. After his having failed in aforesaid selection initiated in terms of advertisement rt dated 27.11.2024, he has approached in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid selection on the ground that same is in violation of R&P Rules, which clearly provides that 50% of the posts are to be filled up on the basis of direct recruitment and 50% on batch-wise basis. Since posts falling in the shares of Persons with Disabilities have been proposed to be filled straightaway vide advertisement dated 27.11.2024, a candidate like petitioner, who belongs to the category of Persons with Disabilities and was waiting for his turn to come on batch-wise basis, is left in lurch, because now he shall have no chance to get selected on batch-wise basis against the posts reserved for Persons with Disabilities.
21. Though, it is not in dispute that pursuant to advertisement dated 27.11.2024, 187 posts of JBTs falling in the category Persons with Disabilities can only be filled up from amongst the candidates belonging to aforesaid category, but precise grouse of the petitioner, ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 18 as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, is that in case .
new method/procedure adopted by the respondents to fill up the posts reserved for Persons with Disabilities is permitted to sustain, very purpose and object of providing job on batch-wise basis shall be frustrated. In case 50% of the posts reserved for Persons with of Disabilities are filled up on batch-wise basis, a candidate, who had passed basic qualification as required for the post in question is/was rt sure to get appointment against the seat reserved for afore category at one point of time, but now with the adoption of new method, as detailed hereinabove, his turn would never come.
22. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that though aforesaid 187 posts advertised vide advertisement dated 27.11.2024 are to be filled up from amongst the candidates belonging to afore category, but since merit interse them is to be assessed on the basis of criteria of evaluation provided vide communication dated 28.08.2017, there is every likelihood of non-selection of candidates like petitioner, who had acquired the basic qualification required for the post in question a number of years back, because at the relevant time, standard of education, availability of resources as well as the method of marking were altogether different vis-à-vis standard of education, resources and method of evaluation prevailing at the time ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 19 of acquiring the required educational qualification by recently passed out candidates belonging to the category of Persons with Disabilities.
.
23. Mr. Bhushan, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that since freshly passed candidates belonging to aforesaid category have secured more marks than the petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons, who had been of otherwise waiting for their turn to come on batch-wise basis, coupled with the fact that, besides marking on the basis of educational rt qualification, candidates shall also be awarded marks on the basis of percentage of their disability, there are very minimal chances of candidates like petitioner, who had acquired the basic qualification 10 years back to be selected against the post in question.
24. No doubt, as per R&P Rules for the post in question, 50% seats are to be filled up on batch-wise basis, but it is not necessary that in every eventuality Persons with Disabilities shall get 4% reservation in batch-wise selection, rather decision in that regard can only be taken by the Government at the relevant time in terms of Rule 16 of R&P Rules, which reads as under:-
"16 Reservation: The appointment to the service shall be subject to orders regarding reservation in the service from Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/ other Backward Classes/other categories of persons issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government from time to time."
25. As per the provision contained in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, wherein percentage of total seat i.e. 4% ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 20 are to be reserved for Persons with Disabilities, meaning thereby 4% of total seats are to be allotted to the aforesaid category. In the case .
at hand, it is not in dispute that vide advertisement dated 27.11.2024, 187 posts reserved for the Persons with Disabilities are proposed to be filled up from amongst the candidates belonging to the said cate-
gory and such candidates can only compete against the posts re-
of served for their category. The very purpose and object of providing 4% reservation to aforesaid category is to ensure that candidates be-
rt longing to aforesaid category are also provided job. It is also not ne-
cessary that every category of Persons with Disabilities shall have chance every time to compete against the posts reserved for Persons with Disabilities, because under 4% reservation, one seat each is re-
quired to be provided to sub-categories such as Blind and low vision, deaf and hard of hearing and locomotor disability. Even if the seats reserved for Persons with Disabilities are to be filled up on batch-wise basis, every person with disability is not assured of selection in each selection process, as at times the seat may be reserved for one sub-
category and at times for another.
26. Though, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in terms of R&P Rules, 50% of the posts are to be filled up on batch-wise basis and accordingly, 50% of the seats reserved for a particular category are also required to be filled up on batch-wise basis, however, as has been observed ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 21 hereinabove, decision, if any, with regard to grant of reservation to one particular category is to be taken by the Government in terms of .
Rule 16 of R&P Rules, which certainly gives liberty to the Government to provide reservation to a particular class at a particular time.
27. However, this Court, having taken note of advertisement of dated 27.11.2024, is of the definite view that no prejudice otherwise can be said to have been caused to the petitioner or other similarly situate persons in case all the posts reserved for Persons with rt Disabilities are taken out of the purview of selection on batch-wise basis, as has been done in the case at hand and thereafter, the same are filled up straightaway from amongst the candidates belonging to said category. Against 187 posts advertised vide advertisement dated 27.11.2024, all the Persons with Disabilities having requisite qualification, including petitioner, can participate in the selection process and there interse merit shall be prepared strictly on the basis of their qualifications as well as other parameters evolved by the Selection Committee. The net result of aforesaid selection would be that the seats reserved for aforesaid category would only be filled up by Persons with Disabilities and not by any other category. It cannot be disputed that employment under 4% quota cannot be provided to each and every Persons with Disabilities, rather in every selection process, if any, initiated to fill up such posts, may be on batch-wise basis or direct as has been done in the case at hand, candidates ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 22 belonging to this category may have to compete in their category.
Even if the aforesaid posts are left to be filled on batch-wise basis, .
candidates belonging to Persons with Disabilities cannot straightaway on the basis of their qualifications claim appointment against a particular batch.
28. At this stage, it would apt to take note Clause 15-B of of R&P Rules herein below:-
"15-b Direct recruitment on batch-wise basis through the rt concerned recruiting authority Selection for appointment to the post in the case of direct recruitment on batch-wise basis shall be made by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education of the concerned district, on the basis of batch-wise merit/inter-se-seniority of the candidates of a particular batch which has passed out from the University/Institution duly recognized by the State/Central Government followed by evaluation as specified in Appendix-1 appended to these rules.
The date recorded by the concerned University/Institution on the original "Detail Marks Certificate" of final diploma/course of Junior Basic Teacher shall be the deemed date for reckoning the batch of the candidate.
The batch-wise merit/inter-se-seniority of a particular batch shall be determined on the basis of marks obtained in the diploma/course of Junior Basic Teacher. In case, the marks obtained in diploma course by two or more candidates are same, the inter-se merit would be decided on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2 level and if there is still a tie, the candidate senior in age would be placed above the junior, in the merit/interse-seniority.
In case the candidates have same score, the candidate senior in age would be placed above the junior, in the merit.
Note:- First posting to the candidates shall be offered in remote and difficult areas of the district, where they shall have to serve at least for five years."
29. p
30. Batch-wise merit or interse seniority of a particular batch shall be determined on the basis of marks obtained in the ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 23 Diploma/Course of Junior Basic Teacher. In case the marks obtained in diploma course by two or more candidates are same, the interse .
merit would be decided on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2 level and if there is still a tie, the candidate senior in age would be placed above the junior, in the merit/interse seniority. In case the candidates have the same score, the candidate senior in age would be placed of above the junior in the merit. If the aforesaid rule, as contained in R&P Rules, is perused in its entirety, it clearly suggests that batch-
rt wise merit/interse seniority shall be determined on the basis of the marks obtained in the Diploma/Course of Junior Basic Teacher, meaning thereby selection of a candidate seeking appointment on batch-wise basis is not certain every time, rather sometime person who though may be junior to him, but on account of his higher marks in diploma course may rank higher in merit, as a result thereof, he would be considered first against the seat available under batch-wise basis. For example, if there are 10 seats reserved for batch-wise basis, but in a batch, which is to be considered for afore 10 posts may have more than 20 candidates. It is not sure that candidate figuring at Sr. No.1 in the batch shall definitely get job on batch-wise basis because their merit/interse seniority is to be determined on the basis of marks obtained by them in diploma course of Junior Basic Teacher.
In case a person lower in merit on batch-wise list has more marks than a person senior in batch-wise basis, he would march over ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 24 person, who was otherwise senior on the batch-wise basis. if the afore analogy is taken into consideration vis-à-vis procedure of .
evaluation adopted by the Selection Committee while conducting the selection process in terms of advertisement dated 27.11.2024, no prejudice otherwise can be said to have been caused to the petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons.
of
31. Leaving everything aside, this Court is of the view that though Person with Disability otherwise may have to wait for years rt together for his turn to come on batch-wise basis, whereas on the basis of new method of selection adopted by the respondent-
Department, whereby it has been decided to fill up the posts under 4% quota falling to the share of Persons with Disabilities straightaway there are every likelihood and possibility of his/her being selected much earlier. In the case at hand, petitioner, who had passed JBT Test in the year, 2016 had been waiting for his turn to come for last so many years, but still Government has decided not to provide reservation to such category on batch-wise basis, whereas a golden opportunity of seeking appointment under aforesaid category came to the petitioner in the shape of advertisement dated 27.11.2024, whereby 187 posts came to be advertised.
32. In the case at hand, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the decision of the respondent-State inasmuch as advertising the post(187) falling to the share of Persons with ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 25 Disabilities from the total posts of JBTs for the reason that every candidate belonging to aforesaid category is/was free to apply, .
subject to his possessing the requisite qualification. In the aforesaid process, petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons have to compete in his own category and similarly, if these posts are left to be filled on batch-wise basis, they are again to compete amongst this of category as is evident from Clause 15-B of R&P Rules, which clearly provides that batch-wise merit/interse seniority shall be determined on rt the basis of marks obtained in the Diploma/Course of Junior Basic Teacher.
33. As has been observed hereinabove, it may not be possible to provide employment to each and every person with disability, rather very purpose and object of Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 whereby provision of reservation has been made to afore category can be well achieved by filling up posts falling in the share of afore category on the basis of merit interse afore category, which can only be assessed on the basis of their marks in the basic qualification as well as other criteria, especially percentage of the disability. This Court is not at all impressed with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons, who had acquired their basic qualification one decade back may not be able to compete with the freshly passed out candidates belonging to afore category for the ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 26 reasons that evaluation of marks and the method of teaching at the time of their passing basic qualification was different from the method .
of marking, education and evaluation adopted at the time of passing out of freshly selected candidates.
34. Aforesaid arguments/submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner are otherwise totally absurd because of essential qualification as per R&P Rules for the post in question is required to be considered at the time of selection. A candidate, who rt may have acquired the requisite qualification for the post in question five years back, cannot be permitted to claim that he cannot be made to compete with another candidate, who has acquired requisite qualification only a few days or months prior to filling of the post in question. Otherwise also, it is a matter of common knowledge that thousands of candidates possessing qualification, which is acquired by them in different years participate in the selection process for the post in question, but only few are selected, as a result thereof, left out candidates, who may be in thousands in number again participate in selection process and in this process are compelled to compete with old as well as new candidates, who may have acquired basic qualification required for the post in question in different years.
35. On the top of everything, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands because at first instance, he applied for the post in question pursuant ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 27 to advertisement dated 27.11.2024, but once he was unable to find place in the merit, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings .
laying therein challenge to aforesaid method/procedure adopted by the respondents to fill up 187 posts reserved for Persons with Disabilities.
36. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner of attempted to argue that there was no occasion, if any, for the petitioner to lay challenge to aforesaid procedure/new method, rt especially when the R&P Rules for the post in question, clearly provide for filling up 50% posts on batch-wise basis. He submitted that petitioner otherwise had no option, but to apply for the post in question in terms of advertisement dated 27.11.2024 because in that event, he would otherwise have lost the opportunity to get appointment against the post reserved for Persons with Disabilities.
37. This Court is not persuaded to accept the afore submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that once petitioner was fully aware that 187 posts are required to be filled up straightaway by inviting applications from the Persons with Disabilities vide advertisement dated 27.11.2024, coupled with the fact that such posts otherwise could not have been filled up, save and except , as provided under R&P Rules, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for the petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons to participate in selection process initiated vide ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 28 advertisement dated 27.11.2024, rather petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons after their having received letter dated .
19.12.2024 (Annexure P-7), whereby he was invited for counseling for the post of JBT physically handicapped quota strictly in accordance with identification of posts purely on contract basis, ought to have approached this Court laying therein challenge to the same on of the ground that posts otherwise proposed to be filled up vide advertisement dated 27.11.2024 cannot be filled up, rather such posts rt can only be filled as per R&P Rules, which provide that 50% of posts shall be filled up by direct recruitment and 50% on batch-wise basis.
38. However, in the instant case, petitioner first took a chance to participate in counseling in terms of letter dated 19.12.2024, but once he was unable to secure place in merit prepared by the Selection Committee, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings for setting aside aforesaid process on the ground that it is not in terms of R&P Rules. On account of aforesaid delay caused by the petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons in approaching this Court, the situation has become more complicated.
39. A large number of candidates belonging to the category of the petitioner participated in the selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 27.11.2024 qua 187 posts and counseling for the post in question already stands concluded. Though, result is ready, but same has not been declared because of order dated 28.02.2025, ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 29 whereby this Court though permitted the respondents to go ahead with the counseling process, but directed that final result shall not be .
prepared without the leave of the Court. Hundreds of persons belonging to the category of the petitioner are desperately waiting for the result and as such, it would be too harsh at this stage to scrap entire process initiated vide advertisement dated 27.11.2024, which of otherwise appears to have been initiated with laudable objective of providing job to 187 persons belonging to the category of Persons rt with Disabilities. In case prayer made in the instant petition, which otherwise does not appear to be justifiable, is accepted further prejudice would be caused to the candidates belonging to the category of the petitioner, who after so many years have got an opportunity to seek appointment against the post reserved for this category. For several years posts reserved were not advertised, as a result thereof, huge backlog of 187 posts has accumulated. Now in case aforesaid process initiated by the Department to fill up the backlog of 187 posts is interfered, it shall be against the public interest, especially category of petitioner i.e Persons with Disabilities, who in that event shall be further made to wait for years together for their turn to come on batch-wise basis. Otherwise also, decision, if any, to fill up posts reserved for afore category on batch-wise is yet to be taken by the Government.
::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 3040. As has been noticed hereinabove, Rule16 of R&P Rules gives liberty to Government to provide reservation. Since there is .
nothing on record that in terms of Rule 16 of R&P Rules, Government ever took a decision to provide reservation to afore category at the time of batch-wise selection, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner otherwise deserves to be rejected.
of
41. Since this Court is fully convinced that with the adoption of process otherwise sought to be laid challenge in the instant rt proceedings, Government has made sincere efforts to protect the interest of category belonging to Persons with Disabilities, prayer made in the instant petition cannot be accepted, especially when there is nothing to suggest that policy decision taken by the respondents inasmuch as filling up posts falling in the share separately through different recruitment process, is contrary to the interest of the candidates belonging to the category of Persons with Disabilities, there is no occasion, if any, for this Court to interfere in the same.
42. After initiation of fresh selection process with the issuance of advertisement dated 27.11.2024, the petitioner herein participated therein but was not selected, as such, after having participated in the selection process and failing therein, now at this stage, the petitioner cannot take a U-turn and challenge the selection process. The petitioner is estopped from laying challenge to the ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 31 selection process, more so, when he has failed to pinpoint any irregularity or illegality in the selection process.
.
43. It is settled law that a process of selection cannot be challenged by an unsuccessful candidate by pointing to certain irregularities here and there in the process of which he was aware, once the result is not to his liking. Relief, in such a case, is to be of declined by applying the principles of estoppel, acquiescence and/or waiver. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the two rt recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
"10. In Madras Institute of Development Studies and another vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others(2016) 1 SCC 454, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
12. The contention of the respondent no.1 that the short- listing of the candidates was done by few professors bypassing the Director and the Chairman does not appear to be correct. From perusal of the documents available on record it appears that short-
listing of the candidates was done by the Director in consultation with the Chairman and also senior Professors. Further it appears that the Committee constituted for the purpose of selection consists of eminent Scientists, Professor of Economic Studies and Planning and other members. The integrity of these members of the Committee has not been doubted by the respondent- writ petitioner.
It is well settled that the decision of the Academic Authorities about the suitability of a candidate to be appointed as Associate Professor in a research institute cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the fact that the candidates so selected possessed all requisite qualifications and experience and, therefore, their appointment cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of qualification and experience. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Institute in appointing respondent nos. 2 to 4 on the post of Associate Professor.
13. Be that as it may, the respondent, without raising any objection to the alleged variations in the contents of the advertisement and the Rules, submitted his application and participated in the selection process by appearing before the Committee of experts. It was only after he was not selected for appointment, turned around and challenged the very selection ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 32 process. Curiously enough, in the writ petition the only relief sought for is to quash the order of appointment without seeking any relief as regards his candidature and entitlement to the said post.
.
14. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.
15. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585, a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee of but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held: (SCC P. 591, para 15) "15. We do not, however, consider it rt necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal vs. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: (AIR p.432, para 9) '9. ....It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of r raising the present technical point.' "
16. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J & K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that:
(SCC p. 493, para 9) "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 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 33 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 1986 Supp SCC 285, 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 challenging the said examination, r the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
17. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments of and observed: (SCC p. 584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had rt appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."
18. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under: (SCC p. 320, para 24) "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."
19. So far as the finding recorded by the Division Bench on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the appellant Institute is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, we are not bound to go into that question, which is kept open."
44. In Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Bihar and others (2017) 4 SCC 357, a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under:
"13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla[4], this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 34 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 of Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724)".
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah (2009) 3 SCC 227, where it was held to be well settled that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully rt well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
15. In Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations:
(SCC p.584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v.State of J. and K. (1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
(2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v.State of Uttaranchal and Ors.(2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 515."
16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 35 cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the .
respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that:
(SCC p. 318, para 18) "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome."
18. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur[11], it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn of around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non- selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey (2015) 11 SCC 493,this Court held that:
(SCC p.500, para17) :
rt "17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had r participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted."
This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam's case (supra).".
45. Since it stands duly established on record that the writ petitioner before laying challenge to selection process had participated in selection process without any demur, now it is not open for him to lay challenge to selection process after his having been declared unsuccessful that too on the bald and baseless allegations.
46. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS 36 alongwith pending applications, if any. Interim order dated 28.02.2025 is vacated.
.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 10,2025 (shankar) of rt ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2025 20:33:57 :::CIS