Point of Law: It is well settled that the principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging the selection process after having failed in it as iterated by this Court in a plethora of judgments

ORDER :

The petition, though listed for Orders, is taken up for its Final Disposal with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the order dated 27.12.2019 of the Selection Committee of respondent Nos.5 and 6 – Bengaluru University appointing respondent No.7 as Assistant Professor in the Department of English.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that, respondent Nos.5 and 6 – Bengaluru University issued a Notification calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up the unfilled backlogs vacancies in various discipline. The writ petition concerns the discipline of English in the Department of English of respondent Nos.5 and 6 – Bengaluru University. The Notification was issued on 21.03.2018 for filling up backlog Teaching posts under Special recruitment Rules. The recruitment is initiated under the Karnataka State Civil Services (unfilled Vacancies reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Rules’ for short).

4. Pursuant to the selection process initiated by the University, the petitioner and respondent No.7 finding themselves eligible under the Notification, participated in a selection process and on consideration of the respective credentials of both the petitioner and respondent No.7, the University notified provisional eligibility list in which, both the petitioner and respondent No.7 were found to be eligible. On further scrutiny of the credentials of both the petitioner and respondent No.7, the University thought it fit to find respondent No.7 eligible to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of English of the University. It is this order of appointing respondent No.7 that is called in question by the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Rahamathulla Kothwal, appearing for the petitioner, the learned AGA, Smt. Sharadamba, A.R., appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, the learned counsel, Sri. A. Nagarajappa, appearing for respondent No.7 and the learned counsel, Sri. B. Ramesh, appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Special Rules under which, the Notification issued mandates that candidates, who are between the age of 29 and 40 are required to be considered at the outset and later, when no candidate is found eligible between the age of 29 to 40 only then a candidate between the age of 18 and 29 should be considered and the petitioner, who is at 34 years ought to have been selected as he was found eligible.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the University while justifying the appointment of respondent No.7 would submit that the petitioner has participated in the selection process and cannot now turn around and challenge the selection process under which he participated. He would place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anupal Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2020) 2 SCC 173 to contend that once a candidate who takes chance of participation in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the selection process or even the appointment of the selected candidate.

8. Learned counsel, Sri. A. Nagarajappa appearing for respondent No.7 in justification of the appointment would contend that the ground with regard to the applicability of Rule 6 of the Special Rules is not made out in the pleadings and it is for the first time submitted before this Court.

9. He would further contend that eligibility of the petitioner for participation cannot be doubted as Rule 3 of the Special Rules clearly indicates that the persons who are beyond 18 years can participate in the selection process. Therefore, no fault can be found with respondent No.7 participation in the selection process.

10. He would further contend that respondent No.7 is far more