Participation in selection process without protest estops unsuccessful candidates from subsequently challenging the interview methodology.

In 1988, the State acquired land in Balasore for an Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) LPG Bottling Plant

The petitioner’s grandmother lost Ac.0.075 of land, making the petitioner a "nominee" of a land loser

Under a 1986 Ministry Circular, project authorities were to explore employment for dispossessed families subject to suitability and vacancies

The petitioner previously filed O.J.C. No. 2156 of 1995, where the Court directed IOCL to allow him to interview subject to eligibility

He attended the interview on September 27, 1996, for the post of ‘Junior Operator (Field)’ but was found "not suitable" by the Selection Committee, securing only 16 marks against the qualifying 40

The petitioner filed the present writ in 1997 challenging his non-appointment and alleging irregularities based on a CBI report from a separate case (Trilochan Das v. IOCL)

1. Whether the petitioner has a legally enforceable right to appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme despite being found unsuitable in the selection process

2. Whether the findings of a CBI report regarding third parties in a separate proceeding can be utilized to grant relief to the petitioner

3. Whether a candidate, after participating in an interview without protest, can subsequently challenge the validity of the selection process

The Court applied the principle of Estoppel and Aquiesence, as established in Madan Lal v. State of J&K, which holds that a candidate who takes a calculated chance by appearing in an interview cannot challenge the process if the result is unpalatable

Regarding Article 14, the Court relied on Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, stating that equality is a positive concept and cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality or demand parity with wrong decisions

It further emphasized the doctrine of Judicial Review, citing Chief Manager, PNB v. Anit Kumar Das, holding that courts are not equipped to assess the suitability of candidates or the utility of qualifications prescribed by an employer

Finally, the Court noted that mere empanelment does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment per Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India

The Court observed that the petitioner participated in the interview specifically mandated by the High Court's earlier order in O.J.C. No. 2156 of 1995

Having subjected himself to the selection process without demur, he was estopped from claiming that such an interview was not contemplated under the 1986 Scheme

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the CBI Report from the Trilochan Das case because the petitioner was not a party to those proceedings, and the appointees alleged to be "ineligible" were not impleaded in the present suit, violating principles of natural justice

Furthermore, the Selection Committee’s assessment—where the petitioner failed to secure even half of the qualifying marks—was deemed a matter of administrative expertise that the Court would not substitute

The plea for mandatory training under Clause 4 of the 1986 Memo was dismissed because such training was meant to equip candidates to compete, not to bypass merit-based suitability tests

It ruled that since the petitioner was found "not suitable" by the Selection Committee and failed to reach the qualifying benchmark, the IOCL was not obligated to appoint him

The Court further held that the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is subject to "other prescribed conditions for the job," and the petitioner’s failure in the interview concluded his claim

No order as to costs was made