ORDER

Challenging the notification dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure P-5) and the order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure P-7) declaring the results and appointing respondent No.5 on the post of Medical Record Officer, the present petition has been filed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 issued a notification on 28.08.2023 for recruitment to regular government post of Medical Record Officer. The petitioner and respondent No.5 along with other candidates applied for the same. After completion of the entire process, the respondent No.5 has been appointed on the post in question vide order dated 04.01.2024. The same has been challenged by filing the present petition on the ground that the very notification which was issued on 28.08.2023 is against the rules.

3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has participated in recruitment process in pursuance to the notification dated 28.08.2023 and he has not been selected. Thereafter, he has preferred this writ petition.

4. Once a candidate has participated in the selection process in pursuance to the recruitment drive, he is debarred from challenging the terms and conditions of the advertisement in terms of the settled proposition of law in the case of Anupal Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2020) 2 SCC

173. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.

56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486, it was held as under:-

"9... 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."

57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395, it was held as under:-

"73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper."

58. In Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100, it was held as under:-

19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, it was further observed:-

"34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interv