JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing column 1 of advertisement no. 47/2017 to 58/2017 dated 31.8.2017 by which more than 50% seats have been reserved for the SC/ST/OBC candidates as also for directing the respondents to publish the result after applying 50% reservation.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that once the petitioner has participated in the selection process consciously and has failed, he cannot thereafter turn around and challenge the matter of selection and its outcome. The learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission has relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 [Ashok Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.], paragraphs no. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 21 are reproduced herein below:-

“12. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate.

13. The law on the subject has been crystallised 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 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, this Court held that: (SCC p. 107, para 18)

“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 Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission.)”

14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah5 wherein it was held to be well settled that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.

15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, 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&K, Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P., Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines.”

16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants h