Candidates participating in a selection process cannot challenge its validity after being declared unsuccessful, as established by the principle of estoppel.

JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench in TA No.1382/2021, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the TA filed by the petitioners herein holding that no ground is made out to interfere.

2. The facts-in-brief, as gathered from the file, are that the petitioners herein were appointed against different posts of Peon/Orderly, Chowkidar, Safaiwala and Lab Bearer between 1983 to 1990. It is claimed by the petitioners that even after discharging their duties for a considerable period of time, they were not promoted to higher posts. In the year 2008, the Government promulgated the J&K School Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008 notified vide SRO 308 dated 16.10.2008. In terms of said rules, Orderlies, Peons, Chowkidars, Safaiwallas along with other similarly situated posts were put in Class VIII of Schedule II-A and modes of promotions were provided for Class VIII posts. Order No.642 dated 06.04.2010 and Order No.2785 dated 20.11.2015 provided that the promotion of Class VIII posts to the Lab Assistant and Junior Assistant shall require qualifying the certificate course in Library and the type test with typing speed of 30 words per minute respectively. Thereafter, in the year 2015, on different dates, the petitioners were promoted on incharge basis against the post of Junior Assistant. Thereafter, when the petitioners failed to qualify the mandatory typing test, they filed TA No.1382/2021 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench. However, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 24.08.2023 dismissed the TA holding that no ground is made out to interfere. Hence, the present petition.

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

4. Admittedly, the petitioners are governed by the J&K School Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008 notified vide SRO 308 dated 16.10.2008 and Schedule IIA attached thereto clearly provided that for appointment against the post of Junior Assistant, 75% quota of the available vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment, whereas 25% quota of the available vacancies shall be filled up from amongst the employees of Class VII and Class VIII having matriculation qualification and shall require to qualify the type test with typing speed of 30 words per minute. If the petitioners were aggrieved of this condition, they were required to challenge the same in the year 2008 itself. However, the petitioners, as per the annexures attached with the file, opted to appear in the typing test. The file reveals that the petitioners were given number of opportunities to clear the typing test, but they failed to make the grade. Even at the time of their promotion as Junior Assistant on incharge basis, they accepted the condition to qualify the mandatory typing test within six months of their promotion on adhoc basis. However, when the petitioners failed to clear the typing test despite providing of number of opportunities, they in the year 2021 filed TA No.1382/2021 before the learned Tribunal seeking to declare the condition prescribed in the recruitment rules as regards conducting of typing test for Orderlies, Peons, Chowkidars etc. as null and void.

5. The Apex Court in a catena of judgments have held that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the procedure of selection. What is held by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 in the case of Ashok Kumar v State of Bihar, (2016)7 SCC 408, is reproduced hereunder:

“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