Karnataka High Court

Prathibha A S vs State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2024

                             1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

       WRIT PETITION NO.26481 OF 2023 ( S-RES)
                       C/W
       WRIT PETITION NO.1634 OF 2024 (S-RES)
        WRIT PETITION NO.1636 OF 2024 (S-RES)
       WRIT PETITION NO.1643 OF 2024 (S-RES)
       WRIT PETITION NO.1658 OF 2024 (S-RES)


IN W.P. NO.26481 OF 2023
BETWEEN:

VIDYA S.K.
WIFE OF HARSHA T.S.
AGED 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT 595, 27TH MAIN
POLICE BOOTH, J.P. NAGAR
MYSORE-570 008.
                                           ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRASHANTH CHANDRA S.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
   MS BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI
   BENGALURU- 560 001.
   REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
                           2


  COMPANY LIMITED
  CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN
  BANGALORE 560 009.
  REP. BY THE DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)

                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI A. CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION/APPEAL
DATED 31.08.2023 IN ANNEXURE-A IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND UNTIL SUCH TIME RESERVE ONE POST IN WOMEN'S
CATEGORY FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER
(ELECTRICAL) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


IN W.P.NO.1634 OF 2024
BETWEEN:

ANUSHA FERNANDES
D/O SEBASTINE FERNANDES
AGE.28 YEARS
R/O LOURDU MATHE NILAYA
NEAR BHOOTHARAYANAKATTE
BETTAMAKKI, SEEBINAKERE POST
THIRTHAHALLI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 432.

                                     .....PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
   MS BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI
                                3


  BENGALURU- 560 001.
  REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
   COMPANY LIMITED
   CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN
   BANGALORE-560 009.
   REP. BY THE DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
                                      ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI A.CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION/APPEAL
DATED 31.08.2023 IN ANNEXURE-A IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND FURTHER TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDERS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND UNTIL SUCH TIME RESERVE
ONE POST IN WOMEN'S CATEGORY FOR THE POST OF
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


IN W.P.NO.1636 OF 2024
BETWEEN:

GAYATHRI H.R.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O REVANNA H.S.
NO. 546, 4TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS
SVP NAGAR
MYSORE-570 028.
                                      .....PETITIONER

(BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
                             4


AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
   MS BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI
   BENGALURU - 560 001.
   REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
   COMPANY LIMITED
   CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN
   BANGALORE-560 009.
   REP. BY THE DIRECTOR(ADMN & HR)
                                     ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILEDUNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION/
APPEAL DATED 31.08.2023 IN ANNEXURE-'A' IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW AND FURTHER TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDERS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND UNTIL SUCH TIME RESERVE
ONE POST IN WOMEN'S CATEGORY FOR THE POST OF
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


IN W.P.NO.1643 OF 2024
BETWEEN:

DIVYA H.S.
D/O SHIVANANDAPPA N.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/O NEAR BAIF OFFICE
SHARADANAGARA, TIPTUR
TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 201.
                                          .....PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
                            5


AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
   MS BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI
   BENGALURU - 560 001.
   REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
   COMPANY LIMITED
   CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN
   BANGALORE-560 009.
   REP. BY THE DIRECTOR(ADMN & HR)
                                     ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION/
APPEAL DATED 31.08.2023 IN ANNEXURE-'A' IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW AND FURTHER TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDERS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND UNTIL SUCH TIME RESERVE
ONE POST IN WOMEN'S CATEGORY FOR THE POST OF
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


IN. W.P. NO.1658 OF 2024
BETWEEN:

PRATHIBHA A.S.
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
D/O A SUBRAMANYA BHAT
H.NO. 107, "CHANDRALA"
MADHURA CHETANA COLONY
2ND CROSS, NEAR SBIOAES SCHOOL
                            6


KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580 023.
                                         .....PETITIONER

(BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
   MS BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI
   BENGALURU - 560 001.
   REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
   COMPANY LIMITED
   CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN
   BANGALORE-560 009.
   REP. BY THE DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
                                        ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI A.CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION/
APPEAL DATED 31.08.2023 IN ANNEXURE-'A' IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW AND FURTHER TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDERS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND UNTIL SUCH TIME RESERVE
ONE POST IN WOMEN'S CATEGORY FOR THE POST OF
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR   ORDERS    ON    10.04.2024, COMING   ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                               7


                           ORDER

The captioned petitions are filed seeking a writ of

mandamus to direct respondent No.2 - Karnataka Power

Transmission Company Limited (KPTCL) to consider the

representation dated 31.08.2023 as per Annexure-A in

accordance with law and issue appointment orders and

also to reserve one post in women's category for the post

of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).

2. Since the issue involved in the captioned

petitions are identical, these petitions are taken up

together and are disposed of by a common order.

3. The petitioners applied for the position of

Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as per the notification dated

01.02.2022. They contend that out of total 505 available

positions, only 102 women candidates met the eligibility

criteria, which falls below the reservation percentage. On

31.08.2023, petitioners communicated/appealed to the

respondent No.2 seeking action to rectify this issue and

undertake equity allotments by thoroughly examining the

said issue. The petitioners further challenge the State's

action of converting 72 category-women seats into general

seats, subsequently allocated to men, which they argue

infringes and discriminates against the employment rights

reserved exclusively for women, jeopardizing the equitable

distribution of general seats. Despite being eligible as per

the notification, the petitioners claim they were deprived

due to this anomaly. The petitioners also assert that the

respondents' actions have compromised the equitable

distribution of category-general seats and have

undermined the mandated 33% reservation for women.

Therefore, petitioners seek a thorough evaluation by the

Recruitment Board to address the anomalies in the

reservation process and ensure the equitable distribution

of seats in accordance with the law.

4. In contrast, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2-KPTCL, contends that the selection

process for the 1492 essential posts in KPTCL & ESCOMs,

as per the notification dated 01.02.2022, is based on

merit and the prevailing reservation policy notified by the

Government of Karnataka. He would contend that

petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Engineer

(Elec.) under GM-WQ reservation and participated in the

examination, securing 35.25 marks in the Aptitude Test

conducted by Karnataka Examination Authority. That the

provisional select list published on 10.01.2024, showed

that all 65 notified vacancies of WQ in GM category were

filled, with the last candidate selected scoring 36.75

percentage marks. Since there were no unfilled posts of

women quota in the GM category, the petitioners were not

selected under GM-Women quota, leading to the filing of

these writ petitions out of frustration for not being

selected. Additionally, as per the Government of

Karnataka order No.DPAR 06 SRR 2001 dated 13.02.2001,

adopted in the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board vide

order dated 30.06.2001, respondent No.2 contends that

vacancies reserved for women candidates shall be filled

from among other candidates in the same category if

qualified candidates are not available.

5. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioners,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and

learned AGA. Perused the records.

6. The petitioners have cited a judgment rendered

by a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.4979/2023

c/w 6588/2023. However, it is imperative to emphasize

that the circumstances and factual matrix of the present

case are distinct from those addressed in the

aforementioned judgment. The directions emanating from

the coordinate Bench were predicated upon a specific

scenario wherein there were posts of Assistant Engineers

in the local cadre which were lying unfilled on account of

candidates eligible in the local cadre were allotted seats

under the non-local cadre and there were large number of

eligible candidates from the non-local cadre seeking

appointment. It would be useful for this court to cull out

the relevant directions issued by this Court as under:

"a. Direct the State and the KPTCL to treat this as an exceptional case and ask for a fresh option from the local persons hailing from the Hyderabad-Karnataka region who have been found eligible for selection in the non-local cadre, as to whether they would be willing to opt for the local cadre;

b. Direct the KPTCL to consider the local persons exercising such an option to choose the local cadre, and then select them against the posts in the local cadre;

c. Direct, as a result of this opting by the local persons into the local cadre (notwithstanding the fact that they were entitled to be selected to the non-local cadre posts), if corresponding vacancies become available in the non-local cadre posts, the State and the KPTCL shall then offer these vacancies to non-local candidates on the basis of merit;

d. Make it clear that the selection of the local candidates to the non-local cadre shall be made only if they wish to choose the non-local cadre and they shall not be compelled to opt for the local cadre.

e. Make it clear that no local persons who are found in the provisional select list as of now shall be displaced from the list by reason of the local persons opting for the local cadre under the process directed above. If a situation arises wherein a local person may be displaced from the list of the local cadre posts, the persons from the non-local cadre posts who had opted for the local cadre shall be continued in the non-local cadre only.

f. Direct that if the local persons are not entitled to be selected to the local cadre posts, they would have to be necessarily considered against the local cadre posts.

g. Direct that in the event it is found that no vacancies arise in the local cadre posts, even after the exercise of options from local persons to opt for the local cadre is concluded, the vacancies shall be carried forward as backlog vacancies, as provided in the Governor's Order."

7. However, the petitioners in the present case do

not assert any contention regarding the appointment of

candidates from the local cadre under the non-local cadre.

Additionally, it is crucial to emphasize that the provisional

select list for the local and non-local cadres are issued

independently. The crux of the present petition revolves

around the method of recruitment governing women

reservation within the Non Hyderabad Karnataka (NHK)

cadre. Therefore, the applicability of the judgment

rendered by the coordinate Bench in the present case is

not applicable, given the distinctive observations and

circumstances elucidated here under.

8. The KPTCL in the Notification bearing

No.KPTCL/B16/21723/2021-22 dated 01.02.2022, invited

applications from eligible candidates to 1492 essential

posts in KPTCL & ESCOMs. The petitioners applied for the

post of Assistant Engineer (Elec.) under GM-WQ, GM-Gen

and GM-RQ and have secured the following percentages

culled out as under:

Gender Aptitude Horizonta Vertical Sl Application ID Name Father Name DOB HK Reserv Remarks Test l Reserva No Percent 1 KPAE1040307 GAYATHRI REVANNA HS F 19- 36.25 N Rural/ GM The said four Writ Petitioners have HR Jun- secured marks less 92 then the cut-off 2 KPAE1001762 ANUSHA SEBASTINE F 3- 35 N GM percentage in GM-

FERNANDES FERNANDES Aug- Gen, GM-WQ and GM-RQ categories 95 as per the 3 KPAE1051171 VIDYA S K KUMARA F 4- 35.25 N GM provisional SWAMY SM May- selection list 92 published on SHIVANANDAPPA 10.1.2024. As such 4 KPAE1020815 DIVYA H S F 21- 35.25 N GM they are not N Jan- entitled for

99 selection. The cut-

                                                                                     off percentages for
                                                                                     these      categories
                                                                                     are GM-Gen-44.5,
                                                                                     GM-WQ 36.75 and
                                                                                     GM-RQ 39.5
5   KPAE1039728   PRATHIBHA    SUBRAMANYAM   F   23-       37.75   N           GM    The petitioner has
                               BHAT                                                  not           studied
                  AS                             Apr-
                                                                                     Kannada as either
                                                 99                                  1st or 2nd language
                                                                                     in SSLC/PUC. As
                                                                                     per the conditions
                                                                                     of       Employment
                                                                                     Notification dated
                                                                                     1.2.2022, she had
                                                                                     to take up Kannada
                                                                                     Language          Test
                                                                                     conducted by KEA
                                                                                     to become eligible
                                                                                     for         selection.
                                                                                     However, she has
                                                                                     falsely declared to
                                                                                     have          studied
                                                                                     Kannada as 1st and
                                                                                     2nd    language in
                                                                                     SSLC/PUC and not
                                                                                     taken up Kannada
                                                                                     Language         Test.
                                                                                     Hence,             her
                                                                                     candidature       was
                                                                                     rejected       during
                                                                                     verification        of
                                                                                     documents.
                                                                                     Further, Kannada
                                                                                     Language       passed
                                                                                     in BE cannot be
                                                                                     considered         for
                                                                                     exemption as per
                                                                                     the conditions laid
                                                                                     down                in
                                                                                     Employment
                                                                                     Notification.     The
                                                                                     case                of
                                                                                     Prathibha.A.S        is
                                                                                     similar             to
                                                                                     Nandeesh.B.R




                          9.      The cut-off    marks       as    indicated   in   the

provisional select list published on 10.01.2024 is culled

out as under:

«ÄÃ¸À¯Áw ¸ÀÆavÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV ±ÉÃPÀqÀªÁgÀÄ d£Àä µÀgÁ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ DAiÉÄÌUÉÆAqÀ PÀmï-D¥sï ¢£ÁAPÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå_UÁæ«ÄÃt 50 50 39.5 02.06.1994 GM-Rural ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå-ªÀÄ»¼É 65 65 36.75 31.07.1991 GM-Women ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå-¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå 42 63 44.5 17.08.1994 GM-General

10. From the remarks of Respondent No.2 - KPTCL,

it can be inferred that the petitioners have secured marks

lower than the cut-off percentage required for selection in

the GM-Gen, GM-WQ and GM-RQ categories as per the

provisional selection list published on 10.01.2024.

Therefore, according to KPTCL, the petitioners are not

entitled to selection in any of these categories. The

specified cut-off percentages for these categories are as

follows: GM-Gen - 44.5, GM-WQ - 36.75, and GM-RQ -

39.5.

11. Although the petitioner in W.P.No.1658/2024,

obtained marks above the prescribed cut-off criteria, she

was deemed ineligible due to her failure to fulfill the

requisite Kannada language proficiency requirement

outlined in the Employment Notification dated 01.02.2022.

Specifically, the petitioner falsely declared to have studied

Kannada as both her first and second language in

SSLC/PUC, thereby evading the mandatory Kannada

Language Test conducted by KEA as per the conditions

stipulated. Consequently, her candidature was rejected

during document verification. Moreover, it is noteworthy

that Kannada language proficiency obtained during B.E.

studies does not warrant exemption from this

requirement, as per the conditions delineated in the

Employment Notification. Therefore, the findings outlined

by the coordinate bench of this Court in

W.P.No.13544/2018 is squarely applicable to the

petitioner in W.P.No.1658/2024. Therefore, the

petitioner's contention of eligibility cannot be entertained.

12. The KPTCL NHK cadre seats under women

reservation is culled out as under:

PARTICULARS GM 2A 2B 3A 3B CAT- SC ST TOTAL

TOTAL WOMEN 65 21 6 6 7 6 20 05 136 SEATS ALLOTED TO 65 4 1 4 1 1 02 00 78 WOMEN CONVERTED TO 0 6 0 2 6 5 00 01 20 GENERAL (MEN) BACKLOGS 0 11 5 0 0 0 18 04 38

13. From the above table, it is evident that all 65

seats allocated to women under the general category (GM)

have been filled, as indicated by the "ALLOTED TO

WOMEN" column. This means that there are no vacancies

remaining within the GM category specifically designated

for women. Furthermore, no posts have been converted

to the general (men) category, as indicated by the

absence of entries in the "CONVERTED TO GENERAL

(MEN)" column. This indicates that there are no instances

where seats originally designated for women under the

general category (GM) have been converted to general

(men) category.

14. Regarding the reserved vertical categories (2A,

2B, 3A, 3B, Cat 1, SC, ST), it can be observed that there

are indeed seats vacant within these categories, as

indicated by the "BACKLOGS" column. However, it is

important to note that the petitioners do not fall under any

of these reserved vertical categories. Therefore, even

though there are vacancies within these reserved

categories, the petitioners cannot claim entitlement to be

appointed under these reserved vertical categories as they

do not meet the eligibility criteria for any of these

categories.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saurav

Yadav vs. State of U.P.1, emphasized the features of

vertical reservations as under :

(2021) 4 SCC 542

"(i) They cannot be filled by the open category, or categories of candidates other than those specified and have to be filled by candidates of the social category concerned only (SC/ST/OBC).

(ii) Mobility ("migration") from the reserved (specified category) to the unreserved (open category) slot is possible, based on meritorious performance.

(iii) In case of migration from reserved to open category, the vacancy in the reserved category should be filled by another person from the same specified category, lower in rank.

(iv) If the vacancies cannot be filled by the specified categories due to shortfall of candidates, the vacancies are to be "carried forward" or dealt with appropriately by rules."

16. The principles outlined by the Hon'ble Apex

Court regarding vertical reservations (SC/ST/OBC) are

pertinent to the present case and dictate that vacancies

within these reserved categories must be filled exclusively

by candidates belonging to the specified social categories.

Furthermore, 'mobility' or "migration" from the reserved

category to the open category is permissible based on

meritorious performance, but not vice versa. In the

context of the present case, where the petitioners do not

belong to any of the reserved vertical categories

(SC/ST/OBC), they cannot be appointed under these

reserved categories, as vacancies within such categories

must be filled by candidates from the same specified

categories. Therefore, even though vacancies may exist

within the reserved vertical categories, the petitioners, not

being eligible candidates from these specified categories,

cannot claim entitlement to be appointed under these

reserved categories. The principles established by the

Hon'ble Apex Court emphasizes the importance of

maintaining the integrity of vertical reservations and

ensuring that vacancies within these categories are filled

by candidates belonging to the specified social categories,

which precludes the appointment of the petitioners under

the reserved vertical category in the present case.

17. The petitioners are also precluded from

adopting inconsistent positions in the matter at hand. By

participating in the selection process with full knowledge

of the procedures involved, they cannot subsequently

challenge the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case

of Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Others vs. The State of

Jammu and Kashmir & Others2, has observed as

under:

"13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna

2023 SCC Online SC 344

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

13.2. This Court in Sadananda Halo has noted that the only exception to the rule of waiver is the existence of mala fides on the part of the Selection Board. In the present case, we are unable to find any mala fide or arbitrariness in the selection process and therefore the said exception cannot be invoked."

18. In Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar 3 at

para 18 it was held that:

"18.... It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection

(2007) 8 SCC 100

process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same."

19. In G. Sarana (Dr.) vs. University of

Lucknow4, wherein a similar stand was taken by a

candidate and in that context the Supreme Court had

declared that the candidate who participated in the

selection process cannot challenge the validity of the said

selection process after appearing in the said selection

process and taking opportunity of being selected. Para 15

inter alia reads thus:

"15.... 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."

20. In light of the principles established by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners, having willingly

(1976) 3 SCC 585

participated in the selection process and subsequently

being declared unsuccessful, are precluded from

challenging the same. The doctrine of waiver and

acquiescence bars them from questioning the process, as

they had ample opportunity to raise objections during

their participation. Furthermore, in the absence of any

evidence of malice or arbitrariness in the selection

process, the exception to the rule of waiver cannot be

invoked. Thus, based on legal precedents, the petitioners'