Madras High Court

P.Chellapandi vs Page 1 Of 28 on 30 October, 2024

                                                                                     W.P.No.5475 of 2021

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                  Reserved on : 25.07.2024           Pronounced on : 30.10.2024

                                                             CORAM

                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

                                                  W.P.No.5475 of 2021
                                                           and
                                           W.M.P.Nos.6079, 8881 and 8882 of 2021

                     1. P.Chellapandi
                     2. D.R.Neethikumar
                     3. V.Kalaiselvan
                     4. A.Prakash
                     5. M.Shankar
                     6. R.Jagannathan
                     7. L.Bharathan
                     8. K.Baskaran
                     9. L.Gothandaraman
                     10. S.Sundar
                     11. N.Jeevanantham
                     12. D.Appathurai
                     13. C.Ayyalraj
                     14. M.R.Saminathan
                     15. M.Dhanabal
                     16. M.Gopinath
                     17. A.Navaneetham
                     18. K.Ramar
                     19. S.Srinivasan
                     20. R.Mahadevan
                     21. G.Sekar
                     22. V.Gunasekaran                                                 ... Petitioners

                                                              Vs.

                     Page 1 of 28



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              W.P.No.5475 of 2021




                     1. The Director General,
                        Railway Protection Force,
                        Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,
                        New Delhi – 110 001.

                     2. Ministry of Railways,
                        Represented by the Joint Director, Estt (Res.),
                        Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,
                        New Delhi – 110 001.

                     3. The Principal Chief Security Commissioner,
                        Railway Protection Force,
                        Southern Railway, 6th Floor,
                        Moore Market Complex,
                        Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

                     4. The Principal Chief Personal Officer,
                        General Manager Building,
                        Southern Railway, Park Town,
                        Chennai – 600 003.

                     5. The Divisional Security Commissioner/ RPF & Chairman of DPC,
                        Ranchi Division, South Eastern Railway,
                        Ranchi – 834 003, Jharkhand.
                     6. K.Ramesh
                     7. T.M.Prakasan
                     8. G.Prasad
                     9. S.Massodvali
                     10. S.Srinivasan
                     11. J.Raju
                     12. P.Robert Amirtharaj

                     Page 2 of 28



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    W.P.No.5475 of 2021

                     13. G.Vinkatesulu
                     14. M.Sakthi Ganesan
                     15. C.Kalyana Kumar
                     16. T.Karunakaran
                     17. C.Ramakrishnan
                     18. J.Michael Raj
                     19. S.Sridharan
                     20. S.Arunchalam
                     21. M.Jacob
                     22. M.Sundar
                     23. V.Karthikeyan
                     24. G.Ashokkumar
                     25. M.H.Syed Zainulabideen
                     26. D.Ravanan
                     27. K.Velraja                                                 ... Respondents
                           [R6 to R27 impleaded vide order dated 10.10.2022
                            made in W.M.P.No.8870 of 2021]


                     Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
                     the selection list by Memorandum dated 20.02.2021 having
                     Ref.No.X/P/535/ASIPF/Selection issued by the third respondent and quash
                     the same insofar as the selection list includes name of the respondents 6 to 27
                     to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector Protection Force, (ASIPF) (Executive)
                     and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to include the petitioners, who
                     are now working as Head Constables since 2008 – 2010 in the panel for
                     promotion to the post of 'Assistant Sub-Inspector Protection Force (ASIPF)
                     (Executive) based on their seniority in the post of Head Constable Railway

                     Page 3 of 28



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                            W.P.No.5475 of 2021

                     Protection Force and based on the result of the departmental promotion
                     computer based exam held on 12.12.2020 by the 5th respondent in the place of
                     respondents 6 to 27.
                     (Prayer amended vide order dated 10.10.2022 made in W.M.P.No.8879 of 2021)



                                        For Petitioner            : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram,
                                                             Senior Counsel for M/s.C.Uma

                                        For R1 to R5              : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan,
                                                             Senior Counsel assisted by
                                                             Mr.K.Vijay Anand

                                        For R6 to R27             : No appearance

                                                             ORDER

The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of the writ petition are as

under:-

All the petitioners herein have been working as 'Head Constables' in the

Railway Protection Force since the years 2008/ 2010. While so, the

Respondent No.3 herein, initiated centralized selection process for promotion

from the rank of 'Head Constable' to 'Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Force

(Executive) (hereinafter referred to as 'ASIPF' for short) in all Zonal Railways/

RPF under Rule 70 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 in pay matrix

Level-5 through proceedings bearing No.X/P 535/ASIPF Selection dated

09.07.2020, proposing to fill up 169 vacancies of ASIPF. Out of the said 169

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

vacancies, 142 vacancies are unreserved, 25 vacancies were earmarked for

Scheduled Caste and 2 posts were earmarked for Scheduled Tribe. A list of

eligible Head Constable (Executive) who are within the zone of consideration

to appear for selection to the rank of ASIPF is also enclosed to the said

proceedings dated 09.07.2020. In the said proceedings dated 09.07.2020, a

specific reference was made to the Railway Board's Letter

No.2018/Sec(E)/PM-3/11 dated 21.01.2019 and also stated that the

candidates of reserved categories shall be considered for promotion only

against the vacancies of the reserved categories.

2. Further, the said proceedings dated 09.07.2020 also provides for

obtaining unconditional willingness or unwillingness of the eligible Head

Constables to participate in the said selection process. It is pursuant to the

said proceedings dated 09.07.2020, the selection process took place and all

the petitioners herein have participated in the said selection process and all of

them emerged as qualifying candidates for consideration of their cases for

promotion. All the petitioners herein belongs to the Scheduled Caste category.

However, the names of the petitioners were not found in the list of selected

candidates for filling up of 169 posts of ASIPF issued through Memorandum

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

bearing Ref.No.X/P 535/ASIPF/Selection dated 20.02.2021 issued by the

Respondent No.3.

3. Though, initially the writ petition was filed seeking a direction to

include the names of the petitioners in the panel for promotion to the post of

ASIPF, based on their seniority in the post of 'Head Constable, Railway

Protection Force' and also based on the result of the Departmental promotion

computer based examination that was held on 12.12.2020, subsequently, the

prayer was amended, questioning the memorandum Ref.No.X/P 535/

ASIPF/Selection dated 20.02.2021 and also impleading the Respondents 6 to

27, who are the candidates selected against the unreserved posts.

4. Heard Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for

M/s.C.Uma, appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned

Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.K.Vijay Anand appearing for the respondents.

5. The selection process in question is in terms of Rule 70 of the

Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The respondents, while undertaking

the said selection process, have filled up the vacancies earmarked for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

unreserved category with the candidates belonging to the unreserved category

and the posts earmarked for the reserved category are filled up by the reserved

category candidates belonging to the respective categories.

6. According to Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners herein are seniors than the

Respondents 6 to 27 and they are entitled to be selected against the

unreserved posts. But their cases were not considered against the unreserved

posts, contrary to the settled legal position and the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “R.K.Sabharwal and others -vs- State of

Punjab” reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745 and in the case of “Rajesh Kumar

Daria -vs- Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others” reported in

(2007) 8 SCC 785. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on a

decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4267 of 2017

dated 22.02.2023.

7. On the other hand, Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 contended that the respondents have

followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court all through and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

appropriate memorandums were also issued from time to time, including the

memorandums dated 10.08.2010 and 01.09.2010 providing for considering

the claims of reserved category candidates against the unreserved posts,

provided they come up for consideration on their own merit without availing

the benefit of relaxation or other concessions provided to the reserved

category candidates. However, it is by virtue of the statement made by the

Additional Solicitor General of India, on behalf of the respondents, before the

Hon'ble Apex Court on 29.09.2016 in Contempt Petition (C) No.314 of 2016

in SLP (C) No.4831 of 2012, stating that the Government would not pass any

further order or promotion relying upon the Circulars dated 10.08.2010 and

14.09.2010, the respondents have issued a Circular bearing No.2016-

E(SCT)I/25/8 dated 30.09.2016 keeping the above said 2 circulars dated

10.08.2010 and 14.09.2010 in abeyance and further promotions of reserved

category persons to unreserved posts will now be made ignoring the Railway

Board's RBE/No.126/2010 dated 01.09.2010.

8. Thus, it is contended that, it is by virtue of the said circular dated

30.09.2016, the respondents, while initiating the selection process through

proceedings dated 09.07.2020, have categorically mentioned that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

candidates of reserved category shall be considered for promotion only

against the vacancies earmarked reserved categories in terms of Railway

Board's Letter No.2018/Sec(E)/PM-3/11 dated 21.01.2019. It is also further

submitted that all the petitioners herein have issued willingness letters

expressing their willingness to participate in the selection process under

proceedings dated 09.07.2020 and accordingly, they have participated in the

selection process and after having failed to succeed in the same, the

petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, as

an after thought and therefore, the petitioners are estopped from questioning

the selection list pursuant to the proceedings dated 09.07.2020.

9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents also

placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of “Tajvir

Singh Sodhi & Others -vs- the State of Jammu and Kashmir and others”

reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 253. He also placed reliance on a decision of

the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.1647 of 2017 dated

26.04.2017, which is stated to have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in SLP (C) No.24534 of 2017 by order dated 16.07.2024 and another

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Deepa E.V -vs- Union of

India and others” reported in (2017) 12 SCC 680.

10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either

side and also perused the entire material on record.

11. The following questions would arise for consideration:-

1. Whether the Respondent No.3 is justified in not

considering the claim of the persons belonging to the

reserved category for promotion against the unreserved

posts of 'ASIPF' in question as per their seniority, basing

upon the Circular No.2016-E(SCT)I/25/8 dated

30.09.2016 issued by the Railway Board; and

2. Whether the petitioners, having participated in

the selection process pursuant to the proceedings/

Notification dated 09.07.2020, are entitled to challenge

the procedure provided for selection after emerging as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

unsuccessful candidates.

12. Question No.1

12.1. The law as to whether the reserved category candidates are

entitled for considering their cases against the unreserved/ open category

posts on their own seniority without claiming any relaxation or concession

available to the reserved category is well settled by now and there cannot be

any controversy in this regard.

12.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “R.K.Sanbharwal &

others -vs- State of Punjab & Others” reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745 held as

under:-

“4. When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. On the other hand the reserve category candidates can compete for the non- reserve posts and in the event of their appointment

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits the State Government to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the Services under the State. It is, therefore, incumbent on the State Government to reach a conclusion that the Backward Class/Classes for which the reservation is made is not adequately represented in the State Services.” 12.3. Similarly, in the case of “Rajesh Kumar Daria -vs- Rajasthan

Public Service Commission and others” reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

“9. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are “vertical reservations”. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are “horizontal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

reservations”. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] , R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] , Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813] and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul [(1996) 3 SCC 253] .) ”

12.4. The Circulars dated 10.08.2010 and 01.09.2010 issued by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ministry of the Railways are also in tune with the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, as noted herein above. However, by virtue of Circular

No.2016-E(SCT)I/25/8 dated 30.09.2016 issued by the Ministry of the

Railways, the above said two circulars were kept in abeyance, basing upon

the statement, said to have been made by the Additional Solicitor General of

India before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

12.5. The Circular dated 30.09.2016 reads as under:-

“ In view of the above assurance received from the Ld.Solicitor General of India, it is advised that Railway Board's RBE No.126/2010 dated 01.09.2010 is held in abeyance with immediate effect till further advice, and all further promotions of reserved category persons to unreserved posts will now be made by ignoring Railway Board's RBE No.126/2010 dated 01.09.2010 which in turn was based upon the DOP&T's OM dated 10.08.2010 and under Reference No.(i) & (ii) above. However, all promotions order henceforth shall be subjct to outcome of the main SLPs and the above mentioned contempt petition which are still pending.” From the above, it is noticed that the respondents, though issued the said

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Circular dated 30.09.2016, keeping in abeyance the Railway Board's RBE

No.126/2010 dated 01.09.2010, directed all further promotions of the

reserved category persons to unreserved posts shall be made by ignoring the

said circular dated 01.09.2010, which in turn was issued based on DOP&T’s

OM dated 10.08.2010.

12.6. Further, it has also subjected all promotions ordered thereafter,

subject to the outcome of the main SLPs and Contempt Petition. The said SLP

and Contempt Petition are stated to be still pending. By virtue of the said

circular dated 30.09.2016, it is only the circular dated 01.09.2010 was kept in

abeyance. Even if the said circular was kept in abeyance, the respondents are

under obligation to follow the law of the land, as declared by the Hon'ble

Apex Court.

12.7. As already noted above, the law in this regard is well settled and

the reserved category candidates are very much entitled to compete for the

unreserved posts on their own merit without availing the concession or

exemption provided in favour of the reserved category candidates. Therefore,

even if the said circulars dated 10.08.2010, 14.09.2010 and 01.09.2010 are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

not given effect to, the respondents cannot deny the right of the petitioners

belonging to a reserved category to compete against the unreserved posts on

their own seniority. But, in the instant case, the respondents have arbitrarily

issued the proceedings dated 09.07.2020, proposing to fill up 169 vacancies

of AISPF, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is

very much binding on the respondents, thereby violating right of the

petitioners guaranteed under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.

12.8. In the light of the above, the Question No.1 is answered in

Negative.

13. Question No.2:

13.1. Though, initially there was a controversy on the issue, as to

whether the petitioners herein have submitted their willingness letters

expressing their willingness to participate in the selection process pursuant to

the Notification dated 09.07.2020 and denied by the petitioners, the

respondents have placed before this Court one such willingness letter

submitted by the 1st petitioner and also made a categorical statement in the

counter-affidavit that all the remaining petitioners also have submitted such

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

letters. The petitioners, having filed a reply affidavit, taken a stand that even

in case if the petitioners have submitted such willingness letters, the same

would not operate as an estoppel against law, but not seriously disputed

about the submission of such willingness letters.

13.2. Thus, the petitioners, having submitted such willingness letters,

accepting for the procedure that is intended to be followed in the selection

process, have approached this Court without disclosing the same. If the said

willingness letters cannot come in the way of the petitioners to agitate their

rights in the present Writ Petition and does not operate as an estoppel, the

petitioners ought to have disclosed the same before this Court and taken an

appropriate stand permissible under law. But, for the reasons best known, the

petitioners have suppressed the said fact.

13.3. Be that as it may, the very notification itself makes a reference to

the Railway Board Letter No.2018/Sec(E)/PM-3/11 dated 21.01.2019, as the

basis for considering the reserved category candidates for promotion only

against the vacancies of the reserved categories. But, the petitioners have

neither chosen to question the Notification dated 09.07.2020 nor the said

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Railway Board Letter No.2018/Sec(E)/PM-3/11 dated 21.01.2019. Thus, it is

evident that the petitioners have participated in the selection process with

open eyes and having been fully aware that their cases, belonging to reserved

category, will not be considered against the unreserved posts, but they have

turned around and now approached this Court by questioning the selection

process that was adopted by the Respondent No.3.

13.4. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioners on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

“Krishna Rai and others -vs- Banaras Hindu University and others”

reported in (2022) 8 SCC 713 is concerned, in the considered view of this

Court, the said decision has no application to the facts of the case on hand.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the said case, while dealing with the principles of

estoppel, wherein appellants, having appeared for the interview and being

unsuccessful, proceeded to challenge the same. But the Hon'ble Apex Court,

having taken note of the fact that the learned Division Bench, having

approved the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge on the merits of the

case, refused to grant relief on the technical plea of estoppel. The Hon'ble

Apex Court, also having taken note of the fact that the applicants therein were

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Class IV employees working from 1977 onwards and cannot raise their

objections at the stage of interview on the principle of changing the rules of

the game. Thus, it was held that the principles of estoppel would not operate

in the facts and circumstances of the said case. But, here is the case where the

petitioners have submitted their willingness letters to participate in the

selection process and they have infact participated in the selection process and

emerged as unsuccessful candidates. Therefore, the law in this regard, as held

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent decision of “Tajvir Singh Sodhi &

Others -vs- the State of Jammu and Kashmir and others” reported in

(2023) LiveLaw SC 253, has direct application, wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court held as under:-

“ The next aspect of the matter which requires consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners to the effect that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the Advertisement Notice dated 5th May, 2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12th June, 2009, without any justifiable reason. In order to consider this contention, regard may be had to the following case law:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

i) In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court authoritatively declared that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently.

ii) In Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment for the post of physiotherapist. Candidates who failed to clear the written test presented a writ petition and prayed for quashing the advertisement and the process of selection. They pleaded that the advertisement and the test were ultra vires the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998. After referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, thKrishna Rai and others -vs- Banaras Hindu University and othersis Court did not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

entertain the challenge for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participation in the selection process. The pertinent observations of this Court are as under:

“24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken 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."

iii) Similarly, in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, a process was initiated for promotion to Class-III posts from amongst Class-IV employees of a civil court. In the said case,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the selection was to be made on the basis of a written test and interview, for which 85% and 15% marks were earmarked respectively as per norms. Out of 27 (twenty-seven) candidates who appeared in the written examination, 14 (fourteen) qualified. They were interviewed. The committee selected candidates on the basis of merit and prepared a list. The High Court declined to approve the Select List on the ground that the ratio of full marks for the written examination and the interview ought to have been 90:10 and 45 ought to be the qualifying marks in the written examination. A fresh process followed comprising of a written examination (full marks - 90 and qualifying marks - 45) and an interview (carrying 10 marks). On the basis of the performance of the candidates, results were declared and 6 (six) persons were appointed on Class-III posts. It was thereafter that the appellants along with 4 (four) other unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the High Court on the administrative side declining to approve the initial Select List. The primary ground was that the appointment process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the written test was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

required to carry 85 marks and the interview 15 marks. This Court dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the appellants were clearly put on notice when the fresh selection process took place that the written examination would carry 90 marks and the interview 10 marks. The Court was of the view that the appellants having participated in the selection process without objection and subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process at their instance was precluded. The relevant observations are as under:

"13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v.

Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 Commission (2006) 12 SCC

724)".

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.

Cancellation of the entire selection process: Whether justified?” In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioners are estopped from questioning the procedure followed in the

process of selection, after having participated in the very same selection

process. Accordingly, Question No.2 is answered in positive.

14. In the light of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed

and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

30.10.2024 skr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To

1. The Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. Ministry of Railways, Represented by the Joint Director, Estt (Res.), Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.

3. The Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway, 6th Floor, Moore Market Complex, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.