Candidates participating in selection processes without protest are estopped from subsequently challenging the recruitment rules.

The appellant applied for the post of Additional District Judge under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.

Following a 2011 amendment to Rule 41, a minimum qualifying benchmark of 25% marks in the viva-voce (7.5 out of 30) was introduced

The appellant secured 161/250 in the written exam (11th rank in aggregate merit) but was awarded 7/30 in the viva-voce

Consequently, he was disqualified for falling short of the interview cut-off by 0.50 marks

The appellant challenged the vires of Rule 41. During the pendency of the writ, the State further amended the rules in 2017 to delete the interview cut-off

The High Court dismissed the writ, terming the challenge "academic" due to the 2017 amendment and holding that previous appointments could not be disturbed

1. Whether the introduction of a minimum qualifying mark for viva-voce in judicial recruitment is constitutionally valid and consistent with the Shetty Commission recommendations

2. Whether a candidate, after participating in a selection process and failing, is legally estopped from challenging the recruitment rules

3. Whether the 2017 deletion of the rule rendered the challenge to the 2011 recruitment academic

The Court applied the principle that Shetty Commission recommendations are non-mandatory guidelines, as established in Mahinder Kumar v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, and must yield to validly enacted statutory service rules

It relied on Syed T.A. Naqshbandi v. State of JK and Malik Mazhar Sultan v. UP Public Services Commission to affirm that recruitment must strictly follow existing statutory rules

the Court applied the doctrine of estoppel as articulated in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, Madan Lal v. State of J K, and Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, which prevents unsuccessful candidates from challenging the selection criteria after voluntarily participating in the process

The Court reasoned that the 25% interview cut-off was not arbitrary but a rational benchmark to assess intellectual and personal qualities essential for a District Judge, which a written test cannot fully capture

It rejected the appellant's reliance on the Shetty Commission, noting that once the State frames statutory rules under its legislative competence, those rules govern the process regardless of prior general guidelines

The Court highlighted that the appellant participated in the process with "eyes wide open" and only challenged the rules after failing, thus attracting the bar of estoppel

the Court observed that granting relief after a decade would cause administrative chaos ("Pandora’s box"), disturb settled seniority of serving judges, and violate the rights of other candidates who accepted their disqualification under the same rules

The Court held that the challenge to Rule 41 was academic following its deletion in 2017

It further held that the interview cut-off was within legislative competence and that the appellant, having participated without protest, was estopped from challenging the results

No relief of appointment or retrospective seniority could be granted as it would disrupt the judicial cadre and administrative finality