By the Court.—This intra Court appeal under the Rules of the Court has been preferred aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.11.2007 passed by the Honble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition No. 42748 of 1999 of the petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as petitioner).

2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee vide appointment letter 4.2.1983 issued by the Addl. Director of Education, Institute of Correspondence Courses, U.P., Allahabad and was posted in Patrachar Shiksha Sansthan (Institution of Correspondents Education) U.P., Allahabad. He was confirmed as a Class-IV employee vide order dated 18.9.1997 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) with effect from 10.2.1987 in accordance with U.P. Nideshalaya Lipik Verg Sewa Niymawali, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 1983 Rules). A selection was held for considering Class-IV employees for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. Written test was held on 31.6.1998 and interview on 4th and 5th August, 1998, as a result whereof, the candidates who qualified, were promoted to the post of Junior Clerk vide orders dated 7.8.1998 and 30.11.1998. The petitioner could not succeed in the aforesaid selection whereupon he filed a Writ Petition No. 42186 of 1999, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 8.1.1999 permitting him to make a representation to the authorities concerned, who were directed to decide the same within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof. Consequently, the petitioners representation was considered and decided by the Addl. Director of Education (Secondary) vide order dated 17.6.1999 rejecting his contention that the selection ought to have been held in accordance with U.P. Government Servants (Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 1994 Rules). It was observed that the petitioner had participated in selection and having failed to qualify, cannot be allowed to challenge the same. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.1999, the petitioner filed the aforesaid Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs :

(a) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.6.99 (Annexure 10) passed by the respondent No. 3.

(b) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner with all consequential service benefits on the post of Junior Clerk, with effect from the date, persons junior to him have been promoted as Junior Clerks.

(c) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction calling for the record of the selection for the post of Junior Clerks referred to in the impugned order dated 17.6.1999 and then quash the same by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari.

(d) Issue any other and further writ, order or direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(e) award cost of the present petition to the petitioner against the respondents."

3. The Honble Single Judge, having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has dismissed the writ petition by judgment impugned in this appeal on the following grounds :

"Petitioner has undertaken written examination and in the same when he has failed, then he has proceeded to challenge. Once candidate has taken chance and has failed, then he is not at all entitled to make challenge qua selection proceedings. In this background claim of petitioner is unsustainable."

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the selection was held by the respondents wholly illegally and contrary to the Rules and, therefore, neither waiver nor estoppel could have deprived the petitioner from challenging the aforesaid selection and the Honble Single Judge has erred in law in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner having participated in the selection, subsequently, ca