M. Srinivasan, C.J.—This writ petition has to fail on a very short ground, namely, estoppel. Admittedly, the petitioners had taken part in j the process of selection and having failed therein have chosen to file this j writ petition challenging the very policy for promotion introduced by I Annexure P-4 dated 31st October, 1983. If the petitioners are really of the opinion that the policy itself was against the provisions of law or unconstitional they should have challenged it soon after the policy was announced, but instead they took part in the selection process and having failed therein come forward with this writ petition.

2. This has been decided in several cases by the Supreme Court and the principle estoppel has been repeatedly reiterated by the Court.

3. In Swaran Lala v. Union of India and others, 1979 (1) SLR 710, the Court said that the appellant therein cannot approbate and reprobate. It was also pointed out that she had willingly, of her own accord, and without any persuasion by anyone, applied for the post, in response to the advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission for direct recruitment and she therefore, took her chance and simply because the Selection Committee did not find her suitable for appointment, she could not be heard to say that the selection of respondent No. 6 by direct recruitment through the Commission was invalid, as being contrary to the directions issued by the Central Government.

4. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, AIR 1985 SC 1043, the Court said that the petitioner having appeared for examination without protest and filed petition only after realisation that he would not succeed in the examination should not have been granted any relief in the petition The Court also pointed out that the setting aside of the result of examinations held in the other Districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there.

5. In Madan Lal and others v. State of J. and K. and others, (1995) 3 SCC 486, the Court stated the law as follow : “9. Before dealing with this contention we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties, The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition, It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."

6. In J. Ashok Kumar v. State of A.P. and others, (1996) 3 SCO 320, the Court refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the selection had already been over and the candidates were selected and appointed to the post

7. In University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma and others etc., 1997 (2) SLR 606, the Supreme Court pointed out that the first respondent also had applied for and sought selection but r