A candidate who applies in a fresh selection process is estopped from challenging its initiation.

The petitioner had worked for several years as a Swachhatagrahi under the Lohiya Swachh Bihar Abhiyan and was issued a satisfactory-work certificate.

Pursuant to a selection process for appointment as Sanitation Supervisor of Gram Panchayat Nadhi, Murliganj, the petitioner applied and was allegedly selected.

He thereafter submitted a representation dated 15 December 2022 alleging irregularities in the selection process.

Upon inquiry, the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Deputy Chairman, District Water and Sanitation Samiti, Madhepura, passed an order dated 18 December 2025, communicated through Memo No. 1919 dated 19 December 2025, cancelling the entire selection process and directing a fresh selection.

The petitioner challenged that order and sought stay of the fresh selection process.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the authorities issued a fresh notice dated 6 January 2026, pursuant to which the petitioner himself applied for the post on 8 January 2026.

The State contended that the petitioner’s fresh application barred his challenge to the earlier cancellation order by estoppel.

Whether the petitioner, having applied pursuant to the fresh selection process, was barred by the principle of estoppel from continuing to challenge the earlier order cancelling the previous selection process?

Whether the order cancelling the earlier selection process and directing a fresh selection disclosed any illegality warranting interference under writ jurisdiction?

The Court applied the principle of estoppel, holding that a person who participates in or submits to a subsequent selection process may be precluded from simultaneously challenging the order that led to that process.

The Court also applied the general principle of judicial review that interference is warranted only where the impugned administrative decision is shown to be illegal or otherwise legally infirm.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment; the decision turned primarily on estoppel arising from the petitioner’s participation in the fresh selection process and the absence of illegality in the order directing such fresh selection.

The Court noted that although the petitioner originally challenged the cancellation of the earlier selection and sought continuation of his alleged entitlement, he subsequently applied for the post under the fresh selection notice dated 6 January 2026.

By participating in the fresh process, the petitioner accepted, at least prima facie, the basis on which the earlier process had been cancelled.

Consequently, the Court accepted the State’s submission that continuation of the challenge was barred by estoppel.

Independently, the Court found no illegality in the administrative order directing a fresh selection process, particularly after the authorities had conducted an inquiry into the petitioner’s allegations of irregularities.

The Court therefore declined to stay or invalidate the fresh selection process.

It further held that no illegality was apparent in the order directing fresh selection.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, without granting the requested relief, with an expectation that the respondent authorities would conclude the selection process expeditiously and in accordance with law.