Acquiescence in recruitment process and participation in subsequent selections precludes challenge to previous reservation application modalities.

The Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) invited applications for 56 posts of Child Development Project Officer Class-II on 16.08.2018

The respondents participated but were either wait-listed or unsuccessful

All 56 posts were eventually filled

On 15.07.2019, a second notification for two additional posts was issued, in which the respondents again participated but failed to qualify

Subsequently, a Division Bench of the High Court in Tammanaben Ashokkumar Desai v. Shetal Amrutlal Nishar (LPA No. 1910 of 2019) quashed a Government Resolution dated 01.08.2018 regarding reservation modalities

Relying on this subsequent judgment, the respondents filed a writ petition challenging the 2018 recruitment process. A learned Single Judge allowed the petition and ordered the select list to be recast

1. Whether candidates who participated in a recruitment process and subsequently participated in a later recruitment cycle can challenge the reservation modalities of the first process after it has been finalized

2. Whether a subsequent judicial change in the interpretation of reservation rules entitles previously unsuccessful candidates to seek a recasting of a finalized select list

The court applied the doctrines of Acquiescence and Estoppel by Conduct.

The principle that a subsequent judicial decision regarding the manner of applying reservations does not automatically revive a right to challenge a selection process that has already attained finality

The court found that the respondents’ actions—specifically their failure to challenge the 2018 selection when it was published and their decision to participate in the 2019 recruitment—indicated they had accepted the legality of the initial process

The court held that even if there were irregularities in how reservations were applied under the old Government Resolution, the respondents had "acquiesced to the said illegality"

The court emphasized that the 2018 recruitment was complete and all posts were filled before the challenge was mounted

Consequently, a later judgment (Tammanaben) modifying reservation applications would not enure to the benefit of those who had already waived their right to challenge the process by their conduct

The Court arrived at the direct answer that the respondents were disentitled from challenging the first recruitment notification due to their prior acquiescence and the finality of the selection process