The principle of estoppel and waiver applies to candidates who have participated in a selection process and subsequently challenge the outcome, as established in various judgments of the Apex Court.

JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.11.2016 delivered by the learned Single Judge in SWP No.1157/2008, whereby the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition directed the Chairman, J&K Service Selection Board to hold fresh interview of the writ petitioner and thereafter take a decision with regard to selection of writ petitioner.

2. The facts-in-brief as gathered from the appeal file are that pursuant to advertisement notice dated 03.07.2007 issued by the J&K Service Selection Board, the writ petitioner applied for the post of Draftsman Civil, Public Works Department, Division Kashmir. The prescribed criterion for selection was 70 marks for qualification and 30 marks for interview. The writ petitioner obtained 48.22 marks for his qualification out of 70 marks. The select list was published on 08.12.2007 vide which 34 candidates were selected under the open merit category, however, the writ petitioner was not selected. He made an application under the Right to Information Act seeking to provide the marks given to the selected candidates as well as to the wait list candidates. When there was no response on behalf of writ respondents, the writ petitioner filed SWP No.320/2008 which came to be disposed of on 27.03.2008 with a direction to J&K SSB to supply the information as sought for. Accordingly, the J&K SSB supplied the information in respect of 34 selected candidates which revealed that the selected candidates were awarded marks in the viva-voce between 19.33 to 29 marks, whereas the writ petitioner was awarded 5.67 marks in the viva-voce out of 30 marks. Accordingly, the writ petitioner filed SWP No.1157/2008 seeking to quash the select list dated 08.12.2007 for the post of Draftsman Civil, Division Cadre Kashmir and also to appoint the petitioner as Draftsman Civil with all consequential benefits.

3. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition vide judgment dated 22.11.2016 delivered in SWP No.1157/2008, passed the following order:

“In the present fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent No.3 to hold a fresh interview of the petitioner by taking into account the fact that the selected candidates have been awarded marks in the range of 19.33 to 29 marks and thereafter to take a decision with regard to selection of the petitioner on the post in question. Needless to state that, in case, the petitioner is found entitled for selection to the post in question, he shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of four months from today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.”

4. Against this judgment of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal on behalf J&K Service Selection Board came to be filed.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival contentions and also perused the appeal file.

6. In order to meet the ends of justice and to understand broader perspective of the controversy as regards writ petitioner and other similarly placed candidates, this Court vide order dated 14.05.2019 directed to the J&K Service Selection Board to provide the following information on affidavit:

“1) Names and details of the members constituting the Interview Committee.

2) Number of candidates beyond the first 34 selected, who have been given marks between 5 & 15 in the interview and their placement in the overall merit.

3) Whether the academic achievements and the merit obtained in academics by the candidates appearing before the Committee were made known to the Committee at the time of interview.”

7. Accordingly, the affidavit came to be filed on 18.09.2019, a perusal whereof reveals that there were other candidates too who could not be selected but were given 48 or more points in the basic qualification. One such candidate is Sanjay Kumar in Open Merit who was given