Failure to Challenge Service Rules and Participation in Selection Process Estops Candidate from Questioning Recruitment Qualifications.

The U.P. Public Service Commission (UPPSC) issued Advertisement No. 2 of 2019-20 on 24.09.2019 for the post of Reader/Jarahat in Government Unani Medical Colleges

The petitioner, possessing a post-graduate (PG) degree, applied and participated in the interview but was unsuccessful

Respondent No. 4, who held the essential degree but not a PG degree, was selected and recommended for appointment on 19.01.2022

The petitioner challenged the recommendation and the advertisement, arguing that the qualifications were based on the "superseded" United Provinces Indian Medicine Act, 1939, instead of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and that her PG status entitled her to preference

1. Whether a candidate who participated in a selection process without protest can subsequently challenge the validity of the advertisement and the selection criteria

2. Whether the "preferential qualification" of a post-graduate degree entitles a candidate to automatic selection over those with only essential qualifications

3. Whether the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution override the regulations framed under the Central Council of Indian Medicine Act, 1970

4. Whether a Writ of Quo Warranto lies against the appointment of a teacher/professor

The court applied the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, as established in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Madan Lal v. State of J&K, which prevents candidates from challenging a selection process after participating and failing

Regarding "preference," it followed State of U.P. v. Om Prakash and Secretary, Health Dept. v. Dr. Anita Puri, holding that preferential qualifications only act as a "tilting factor" between candidates with equal merit

On the hierarchy of laws, it applied the principle from Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao that rules framed under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution (State Public Services) hold field over recommendatory regulations of Central Councils

Finally, it relied on Kundan Singh v. State of UP regarding the non-maintainability of Quo Warranto for teaching posts

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had waived her right to challenge the advertisement’s legality by consciously participating in the interview process without protest

On the merits of the qualification, the Court found that while the petitioner had a PG degree (a preferential qualification), this did not grant her an "en bloc" right to selection; rather, it was only applicable if she and the respondent were otherwise equal in merit, which was not the case here

Regarding the conflict between the State Act of 1939 (and 1990 Rules) and the Central Act of 1970, the Court held that since the recruitment pertained to State Public Services, the State-framed 1990 Rules under Article 309 are mandatory, while CCIM regulations are merely recommendatory and cannot override statutory service rules

Lastly, the Court noted that a Writ of Quo Warranto is not maintainable as the post of a Professor/Reader is not a high "public office" but an employee of a statutory body

The Court dismissed the writ petition. It further held that "preference" does not mean automatic appointment and that the State’s 1990 Rules appropriately governed the recruitment. The Court vacated all interim orders and directed the respondents to proceed with the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as recommended by the UPPSC