Candidates participating in a selection process without objection cannot later challenge the process or its outcomes, establishing the principle of acquiescence.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioners have raised a grievance that the respondents have not reserved any post for divorcée category, whereas, at least 2% seats ought to have been earmarked for divorcée as per the notification dated 21.05.2018.

2. The precise facts needed for the present purposes are, that the respondent No.2- Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board, issued an advertisement dated 21.05.2018 for filling up 485 posts of Librarian Grade III, out of which 2 posts were earmarked for Widows.

3. Point No.4 of special notes of the advertisement aforesaid is as under:

4- efgykvksa gsrq vkjf{kr n'kkZ, x, inksa esa fu;ekuqlkj 8 izfr'kr in fo/kok ,oa 2 izfr'kr ifjR;Drk ¼fookg fofNUu efgyk½ efgykvksa ds fy, vkjf{kr gSA ;fn i;kZIr fo/kok vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksrh gS rks fo/kok ds fy;s vkjf{kr in dks mlh Js.kh dh ifjR;Drk ¼fookg&fofNUu efgyk½ ls Hkjk tk;sxkA blh izdkj ;fn i;kZIr ifjR;Drk vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksrh gS rks buds fy;s vkjf{kr in dks mlh Js.kh dh fo/kok efgyk ls Hkjk tk;sxkA ;fn fo/kok ,oa ifjR;Drk nksuksa gh i;kZIr la[;k esa miyC/k ugha gksrh gS rks buds fy;s vkjf{kr in dks mlh Js.kh dh lkekU; efgyk ls Hkjk tk;sxkA fo/kok vkosnd gksus dh fLFkfr esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh ifr dh e`R;q dk izek.k&i= ,oa ifjR;Drk efgyk ¼fookg fofNUu efgyk½ dks fookg foPNsn dk izek.k izLrqr djuk gksxkA

4. Inviting Court's attention towards aforesaid Point No.4 of special notes of the advertisement, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents were required to earmark atleast 2% posts for divorcée as against which, they have reserved only 2 posts in the category of divorcée and thus, allocation of seats deserves to be quashed.

5. Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, appearing for the respondent- Selection Board, at the outset raised a preliminary objection that the petition suffers from delay and laches. In order to substantiate this argument, she highlighted that after issuance of the advertisement, the corrigendum/supplementary advertisement was issued on 01.11.2019; the petitioners appeared in the written examination on 19.09.2020; the result of written examination was declared on 11.11.2020 and even the final result had been declared on 25.03.2021, whereas the petitioner has preferred the writ petition as late as on 26.08.2021.

6. Having informed the Court about the requisite dates, he argued that even after the declaration of final result in March, 2021, the petitioner did not take up her remedies and the present writ petition has been filed, when the final select list has already been issued.

7. Mr. Sanadhya relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2016 SC 5069, particularly para No.11, 12 and 15 as under:

" 11. 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.

12. 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 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:

"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid d