The authorities are required to strictly follow the selection process and consider the seniority and performance of the candidates in making promotions.

Debangsu Basak, J.

The petitioner has challenged the promotion of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 to the post of Accountant and Cashier of the college. According to the petitioner, he is senior to the respondent no. 7. The appointment to the posts of Accountant and Cashier has to be undertaken on the basis of seniority. The two posts are promotional in nature. The petitioner had participated for the selection for both the posts. He has been unfairly denied the promotion.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that, the panel for the selection process was not appropriately constituted. The first statute of the university has been relied upon in support of such contention. Reliance has also been placed on 1988 (Supp.) Supreme Court Cases page 562 (State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Dr Mohanjit Singh & Anr.) as well as 2013 Volume 12 Supreme Court Cases page 179 (State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors.) in this regard.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the college authorities that, the petitioner had participated for two posts unconditionally. He has been unsuccessful. As an unsuccessful candidate he cannot be allowed to challenge the selection process. Reliance in this regard has been placed on 2008 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases page 171 (Dhananjay Malik & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.) and 2006 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases page 395 (K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors.). The college authorities have also produced the records being the minutes of the Governing Body dealing with the appointment.

4. On behalf of the respondent no. 6 it has been submitted that, the petitioner was given initial appointment on August 21, 2000 as that of the respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 6 has been promoted to the post of Accountant. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the promotion of the respondent no. 6.

5. On behalf of the respondent no. 7 it has been contended that, the petitioner having participated in the selection process cannot be allowed to challenge the same. In support of such contention reliance has been placed on 1986 (Suppl.) Supreme Court Cases page 285 (Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors.), 1995 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases page 486 (Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K and Ors.), 2006 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases page 395 (K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors.) and 2007 Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases page 522 (Marripati Nagaraja & Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.).

6. Om Prakash Shukla (supra), Madan Lal & Ors. (supra), K.H. Siraj (supra), Marripati Nagaraja & Ors. (supra) and Dhananjay Malik & Ors. (supra) have held that, a candidate who has participated in a selection process without protest is estopped from challenging such selection process. The challenge made by the petitioners in such matters was found not sustainable as they had participated unconditionally.

7. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner are founded upon the contention that the selection process is flawed and that the selection process has not been correctly implemented. A situation may arise where a candidate participating in the selection process discovers subsequent to his participation that the selection process stands vitiated by fraud or arbitrariness or capricious exercise of power or biasness. A candidate who is able to demonstrate, establish and substantiate such allegation in a Court of law cannot be held to be remediless on the plea of estoppel. It is one thing to say that he had participated knowing fully well the alleged irregularities and another to say that subsequent to his participation he has discovered the illegalities. The fact situation in each case has to be seen to adjudge whether the candidate concerned had participated knowing the illegalities and, therefore, estopped from challenging the same or that the candidate has discovered the illegality subsequently and, therefore, entitled to the reliefs. A situation may arise where the petitioner could have disco