IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of waiver and acquiescence applies when a candidate participates in a selection process without protest and cannot subsequently challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A No. 1664/2016. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the original application preferred by the petitioner wherein he had sought appointment to the post of Junior (ECG) Technician.

2. At the outset, the brief factual matrix as is necessary for adjudication of the present petition may be noted.

3. On 27.05.2013, the respondent no.3/Dr. RML Hospital issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up 15 posts of Jr. (ECG) Technician out of which, 4 posts were reserved for OBC category candidates, to which category, the petitioner belongs. As per the `Scheme of Selection' referred in the aforesaid advertisement, the selection to the posts of Jr. (ECG) Technician was to be made only on the basis of an interview which was to be conducted by a `Selection Committee' constituted by the respondent no. 3-hospital. It was further clarified in the `Scheme of Selection' that in case the number of applications received for a particular post were very large, a shortlisting criteria for calling candidates for interview may be adopted.

4. It is the common case of the parties that instead of conducting the interviews, the respondents decided to hold a written examination for the aforesaid post, which exam was held on 14.11.2014 in which the petitioner duly appeared. After the written test, the petitioner was called for a skill test in which he appeared on 29.02.2016. When the results for this selection process were declared on 26.04.2016, the petitioner realized that he had not been selected and therefore approached the learned Tribunal in May 2016 by way of O.A No. 1664/2016 which has been dismissed under the impugned order.

5. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

6. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that once the respondents had vide their advertisement dated 27.05.2013 notified that the selection would be made only the basis of the interview, they could not change the rules of the game and decide to hold the selection on the basis of the written examination and skill test. In support of this plea, he places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 and contends that a new selection criteria cannot be introduced midway. He, therefore, prays that the selection process be quashed and the respondents be directed to hold a fresh selection process based on interview alone.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner having without any reservation participated in the selection process by appearing not only in the written exam but also in the skill test, cannot now be permitted to challenge the same. He further submits that the decision of the respondents to discontinue the process of interviews for recruitment to junior level post is in consonance with the decision taken by the DoPT and subsequently, notified vide OM dated 29.12.2015.

8. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the parties, it may be apposite to refer to para 11 of the impugned order from which it transpires that the learned Tribunal has rejected to the OA primarily on the ground that the petitioner had without any demur participated in the selection process and could not now be permitted to challenge the same. The same reads as under:

"11. It is also well settled proposition of law that an unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge the advertisement and procedure of selection after participating in the same. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent no.4 relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 wherein