A candidate who participates in a selection process without protest and is subsequently unsuccessful cannot challenge the selection procedure thereafter, as they are precluded by the principle of waiver and estoppel from questioning the methodology they previously acquiesced to.

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2026, whereby the petition filed by the appellants challenging the selection proceedings was dismissed.

2. It transpires that the respondent-Commission has advertised various posts including the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture and equivalent (Administrative Cadre) (Group-A) in Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Haryana. The advertisement, pursuant to which the recruitment has been initiated, is contained in Annexure P-1. Two clauses which have been relied upon by the appellants to assail the selection proceedings are required to be noticed at the outset. Clause 1 of the instructions provides as under:-

“1….. The eligibility of a candidate with reference to the documents submitted by him/her is assessed only after the candidate has qualified for the interview.”

3. There is another clause in the advertisement, i.e. clause16(vii), which reads as under:-

“(vii) The application of the candidates, who do not fulfill the qualification/eligibility conditions on the Closing Date, shall not be accepted by the online application system.”

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the aforesaid two clauses are self-contradictory, inasmuch as the stipulation in clause 16(vii) mandates that the candidates who do not fulfill the qualification/eligibility conditions on the closing date, are not required to be allowed to participate in the recruitment exercise. It is therefore contended that the Commission proceeded in an erroneous manner in allowing certain candidates to take part in the screening test, even though they were ineligible. According to the appellants, large number of candidates who had qualified the screening test were ultimately declared ineligible at the time of being called for interview, which shows that clause 16(vii) was not correctly applied. It is then stated that this error in holding of recruitment has materially affected the candidates, inasmuch as those persons (including the appellants) who were otherwise eligible were pruned out as ineligible persons with higher merit were allowed to participate in the previous stages of recruitment. It is also submitted that a different system has been followed by the Commission in other recruitment which shows that the procedure followed by the Commission is not uniform and consistent.

5. The appellants’ contention has not found favour with the learned Single Judge, who having examined the contentions placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs. State of J&K, 2023 (17) SCC 147, to reject the claim of the appellants. The observations made by the learned Single Judge, in this regard, read as under:-

“The principal grievance raised by the petitioners is that some candidates who were later found ineligible had been permitted to participate in the earlier stages of the selection process and that such candidates ought to have been excluded at the threshold itself. However, this contention cannot be accepted in view of the explicit terms of the advertisement which permitted provisional participation in the recruitment process and contemplated verification of eligibility at a later stage. The Commission has, therefore, acted strictly in accordance with the conditions governing the recruitment.

It is also significant that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process with full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the procedure adopted by the Commission. They did not raise any objection at the relevant stage and only after remaining unsuccessful in the screening test have they approached this Court seeking to challenge the selection process and to se