Participation in selection process precludes unsuccessful candidates from subsequently challenging recruitment methodology or results.

The petitioner, a highly qualified candidate with an M.Sc., B.Ed., and Ph.D., applied for the post of Principal in Adarsha Vidyalayas following an advertisement dated 19.04.2022

Out of 23 advertised posts, 18 candidates were selected and appointed

Initially excluded from the shortlist due to failing the 50% credit score cut-off, the petitioner was included in a second list after the respondent authorities lowered the cut-off to 45%

The petitioner appeared for the interview on 31.05.2022 but was not selected in the final list dated 01.06.2022

She challenged the selection process, contending that her doctorate degree and her Serial No. 2 position in the interview shortlist indicated higher merit

She further alleged that 5 posts remained vacant and that one selected candidate was not a permanent resident of Assam

1. Whether the selection process was vitiated by irregularity due to the non-selection of the petitioner despite her doctorate degree and her position in the interview shortlist

2. Whether a candidate who has participated in a selection process without protest can subsequently challenge the methodology or results upon failing

The court applied the selection criteria established in the advertisement, which utilized a 50-mark credit score system based on academic career, teaching experience, and leadership skills, noting that no specific marks were allotted for a Ph.D.

Legally, the court relied on the doctrine of estoppel as settled in Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1995) 3 SCC 486, which holds that a candidate cannot challenge the selection process after participating in it and finding the result unfavorable

This was reinforced by Dhananjay Malik & Ors vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 171 and Madras Institute of Development Studies vs. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan (2016) 1 SCC 454

The court held that the petitioner’s reliance on her Serial No. 2 position in the interview shortlist was misplaced, as that list was merely an alphabetical or preliminary list of candidates qualified for the interview and did not represent a final merit ranking

Regarding her academic qualifications, the court observed that while the petitioner held a Ph.D., the advertisement did not provide for additional marks or preference for doctorate holders; thus, her non-selection was based on her overall performance relative to other candidates

The court further dismissed the allegation regarding the residency of a selected candidate due to a lack of evidence

Applying the principle of estoppel, the court reasoned that since the petitioner took a "calculated chance" by participating in the interview, she could not legally challenge the process simply because she was unsuccessful

It held that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process, was precluded from challenging its outcome

The writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit