Participating in Recruitment Process After Rule Change Waives Right to Challenge: Karnataka High Court - 2025-09-12

Candidates Who Participate in Selection Process After Rule Change Cannot Challenge it Later, Rules High Court

---

Kalaburagi, Karnataka: The High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, has ruled that candidates who participate in a recruitment process without protest after the selection criteria have been changed, effectively waive their right to challenge those modifications later. The division bench, comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice T.M. Nadaf , applied the doctrine of estoppel while partially dismissing an appeal filed by temporary employees of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur.

The court, however, quashed a notification that altered the evaluation criteria after the examinations had already been conducted, holding it to be impermissible.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Venkatesh and four other temporary employees working as Assistants/Typists at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur. They challenged a series of notifications issued by the University that modified the selection process for various 'C' group posts, including Typist/Computer Operator.

The recruitment process began with a notification in 2015, based on a 2010 'Score Card' method. However, in April 2016, the University issued a new notification introducing a written test, partially modifying the score card system. This change was made to align with amendments to the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations and Selection) (General) Rules. A further modification in March 2017 introduced a practical test for the post of Typist. The appellants, along with other candidates, participated in the written and practical tests held under these new criteria.

After the tests were conducted, the University issued another notification on September 4, 2017, completely abolishing the score card method and declaring that selection would be based solely on the written/practical tests. The appellants, who were unsuccessful in the selection process, challenged the 2016 and 2017 notifications, arguing that the "rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun."

Arguments of the Parties

• Appellants' Arguments: The appellants, represented by Sri Ravindra Reddy, contended that the University's action of changing the selection procedure mid-way was illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide. They relied on landmark Supreme Court judgments in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and N.T. Bevin Katti vs. KPSC , arguing that the selection process must adhere to the rules that were in place when the recruitment was initiated.

• University's Arguments: The University, represented by Sri Amresh S. Roja, argued that the appellants were estopped from challenging the modified criteria. They pointed out that the appellants had consciously participated in the selection process under the new rules without protest, and only challenged them after being unsuccessful. They contended that candidates cannot be allowed to "approbate and reprobate"—take a chance with the process and then challenge it upon failure.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The High Court meticulously analyzed the timeline of events and the legal principles involved. The bench distinguished the application of the K. Manjusree principle in two distinct phases of the recruitment process.

1. Changes Made Before the Examination (April 2016 & March 2017 Notifications): The Court found that the appellants had participated in the examinations held under the modified criteria without demur. It observed, "The petitioners have waived their right, if any, to challenge the changed criteria by participating in the process." The judgment noted that there was a 40-day gap between the notification introducing the practical test and the exam, giving candidates sufficient time to challenge it, which they failed to do.

   "It is rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that the appellants have waived their right, if any, to challenge the changed criteria by participating in the process... when they are unsuccessful, they cannot question the same."

2. Changes Made After the Examination (September 2017 Notification): The Court took a different view of the University's decision to completely drop the score card method after the examinations were already over. This, the bench held, was a clear violation of the principle laid down in K. Manjusree .

   "The decision of the University to drop the Score Card method after conducting the examination... is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in K. Manjusree’s case... The University having taken the decision to hold the examination in terms of criteria fixed under notification dated 09.04.2016... could not have partially dropped the eligibility criteria..."

Final Decision

Upholding the order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal. The Court confirmed the quashing of the September 4, 2017 notification, which was issued post-examination. It directed the University to prepare a fresh selection list based on the criteria that were in place when the examinations were conducted—i.e., the rules established by the notifications of April 9, 2016, and March 15, 2017. The challenge to these pre-examination notifications was rejected on the grounds of waiver and estoppel.