Participating in selection bars challenging post-selection procedure or rules.

The petitioner, Gaurav Kumar, applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under Advertisement No. 02/2017 issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC).

The advertisement was for 963 vacant posts, later increased to 1237, and then revised to 1257 total vacancies, with 323 reserved for female candidates.

The petitioner belongs to the EBC category and participated in all stages of the recruitment process, including the preliminary examination (result published 30.01.2019), mains/written examination (result published 24.01.2021), and interview.

The final result was published on 14.07.2021 and revised on 24.08.2021, declaring 1241 successful candidates.

The petitioner secured 434 marks in the final examination, one mark less than the EBC category cut-off of 435 marks, and was placed 9th in merit below the last selected EBC male candidate (Merit Serial No. 1508).

After the final selection, 153 seats remained vacant due to non-joining of selected candidates, including at least 17 posts under the EBC category.

The petitioner requested the BPSC to release a waiting list to fill these vacancies from the existing merit list.

The National Commission for Backward Classes also directed the BPSC/State of Bihar to publish a waiting list for this purpose.

However, the respondents decided to carry forward these vacancies to subsequent advertisements (e.g., Advertisement No. 29 of 2025), citing Clause 16 of the Government Circular and Resolution dated 16.07.2007.

This circular stipulates that unfulfilled vacancies due to non-joining are carried forward to the next recruitment year.

The petitioner challenges this clause and the non-filling of the vacant posts from the existing merit list.

Additionally, 17 vacancies for the unreserved category were kept reserved due to the non-availability of handicapped candidates.

1. Whether the petitioner, who was not selected, has a right to be appointed to the vacant posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the EBC category that arose due to the non-joining of finally selected candidates for Advertisement No. 02/2017?

2. Whether Clause 16 of the Government Circular and Resolution dated 16.07.2007, which mandates carrying forward unfilled vacancies to the next recruitment cycle, can be challenged by a candidate who participated in the selection process?

3. Whether the State Government is obligated to fill up vacancies arising from non-joining of selected candidates from the same merit list, especially when eligible candidates are available below the cut-off?

The court primarily applied the principle that a candidate, having participated in a selection process without objection, cannot subsequently challenge the procedure or criteria after being declared unsuccessful.

This principle, supported by State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 8822-8823 of 2022) and Tajvir Singh Sodhi Ors. v. State of Jammu Kashmir Ors., establishes a rule of estoppel and acquiescence.

The court also considered Clause 16 of the Resolution contained in Memo No. 2374 dated 16.07.2007 of the Personnel Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, which states that vacancies due to non-joining of candidates are to be carried forward to the next requisition.

Furthermore, Orissa Court Ors. v. Rajkishore Nanda Ors. (2010 (6) SCC 777) was cited for the proposition that a select list is not a perpetual reservoir for appointments.

The court also referenced Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991 (3) SCC 47) which held that selected candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment and the State's decision not to fill vacancies must be _bona fide_.

The court found that the petitioner participated in the selection process for Assistant Engineer (Civil) under Advertisement No. 02/2017, fully aware of the State Government's circular dated 16.07.2007.

This circular, a reiteration of a 1997 circular, stipulated that vacancies arising from non-joining of selected candidates would be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle.

The petitioner challenged Clause 16 of this circular and sought appointment to vacant EBC posts after failing to secure selection by one mark.

The court applied the well-settled principle of estoppel, holding that a candidate who participates in a selection process and is unsuccessful cannot later challenge the procedure or the rules governing that process, as established in State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar and Others and Tajvir Singh Sodhi Ors. v. State of Jammu Kashmir Ors.

The court noted that the petitioner was aware of the circular before participating.

Moreover, the court supported the BPSC's actions in carrying forward the vacancies, referencing Clause 16 of the Resolution dated 16.07.2007.

The court also deemed the merit list for Advertisement No. 02/2017 to have lost its significance following subsequent advertisements and appointment processes (01/2019 and 32/2024), aligning with the principle from Orissa Court Ors. v. Rajkishore Nanda Ors. that a select list is not a perpetual reservoir.

Despite the petitioner's argument citing Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India regarding the State's arbitrary action, the court found the State's decision to carry forward vacancies was based on a standing policy documented in the 2007 circular.

The court held that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process, could not challenge Clause 16 of the State Government's Circular dated 16.07.2007 after being unsuccessful.

The policy of carrying forward unfilled vacancies due to non-joining of selected candidates to the next recruitment cycle was upheld.

The court found no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the BPSC in line with this circular.

Consequently, the petitioner was denied appointment to the vacant posts, and the merit list from Advertisement No. 02/2017 was deemed to have lost its significance due to subsequent recruitment processes.