Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for V. SURENDRA MOHAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU...
Checking relevance for Ankita Thakur VS H. P. Staff Selection Commission...
2023 7 Supreme 468 : Yes, a candidate can challenge the vacancy rules after participating and result declaration. The legal documents confirm that candidates who were excluded from the merit list due to the application of a relaxation order (dated 21.08.2017) challenged the validity of the rules and the resulting selection process. Specifically, candidates who were not placed in the select list because ineligible candidates were included due to the relaxation order filed writ petitions (e.g., Writ Petition No. 34 of 2019) challenging the relaxation and seeking quashing of the merit list. The court examined whether the relaxation of eligibility criteria, issued after the last date for application submission, was legally sustainable, and ultimately ruled that such relaxation could not be applied retroactively without giving affected candidates an opportunity to apply and compete. This demonstrates that candidates have standing to challenge the rules and procedures after participation and result declaration, particularly when such changes affect their eligibility and merit position.Checking relevance for P. Mohanan Pillai VS State Of Kerala...
2007 3 Supreme 727 : Yes, a candidate can challenge the rules governing a vacancy even after participating and after the result declaration, provided the changes to the rules were made arbitrarily or without sufficient justification. The court held that eligibility criteria and procedures prevailing on the date of vacancy should ordinarily be followed, and any change to such rules after the publication of results—such as enlarging the zone of consideration from 1:3 to 1:4 or lowering the qualifying marks—must be supported by good and sufficient reasons. The failure to provide such reasons renders the decision arbitrary and liable to be set aside. In this case, the company’s post-result changes were not explained, which prejudiced the appellant, and the court ruled that such arbitrary changes could be challenged and invalidated.Checking relevance for T. Jayakumar VS A. Gopu...
Checking relevance for Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa...
Checking relevance for Dheeraj Mor VS Hon’ble High Court of Delhi...
Checking relevance for RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM VS SANJEEV KUMAR...
2020 0 Supreme(SC) 297 : Yes, a candidate can challenge the selection criteria and the entire selection process even after participating in the process and after the result has been declared, if the candidate was not aware of the criteria under which they were selected and those criteria were first published only along with the final result. In such a case, the candidate cannot be estopped from challenging the criteria and the process, especially when there were glaring illegalities, such as arbitrary changes in selection criteria, scrapping of a written examination without proper notification, and decisions made unilaterally by the Chairman of the Commission without proper authority. The principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence does not apply when the candidate was kept in total darkness about the criteria and the process was fundamentally flawed.Checking relevance for Venkatesh S/o Sugappa vs State of Karnataka...
2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1034 : A candidate cannot challenge the selection rules after participating in the recruitment process and after the result has been declared, as their participation without objection constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the changed criteria. This is grounded in the doctrine of estoppel, which prevents candidates from objecting to changes in rules after they have engaged in the process under the modified terms.Checking relevance for Sushil Kumar vs State of Haryana...
2025 0 Supreme(P&H) 181 : Candidates cannot challenge the selection criteria or vacancy rules after participating in the selection process and failing to raise objections at the time, as established by the principle of waiver and acquiescence. The court held that once a candidate participates in a selection process without prior objection, they are bound by the outcome and cannot later contest the eligibility criteria, even if the rules are applied retrospectively.
