Unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge a selection advertisement after participating and then delaying for twelve years.

The petitioners initially sought directions to amend the qualification prescribed for appointment as Ayurvedic/Unani Compounder or Ayurvedic Mishrak, contending that the qualification of Intermediate with Biology, prescribed in the 2016 recruitment notice, was inconsistent with the earlier departmental notification dated 4 July 1983, which recognised Matriculation as the relevant qualification.

During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 1 of 2025 challenging the advertisement dated 23 September 2013 for appointment of Ayush Pharmacists.

The petitioners had participated in the selection process pursuant to the 2013 advertisement and were declared successful in the written examination. However, they were not finally selected after a corrigendum altered the essential qualification and extended the application deadline from 10 October 2013 to 23 October 2013.

The challenge to the advertisement was brought approximately twelve years later. The petitioners did not implead the Bihar State Health Society, which had issued the advertisement, or any candidate selected pursuant to it.

1. Whether the petitioners, having participated in the selection process and having remained unsuccessful, could challenge the 23 September 2013 advertisement after an unexplained delay of approximately twelve years?

2. Whether relief affecting the selection and appointment process could be granted in the absence of the Bihar State Health Society and the selected candidates as necessary parties?

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to appointment as Ayush Pharmacists merely because they had qualified in the written examination conducted pursuant to the impugned advertisement?

The Court applied the principles of delay, laches, acquiescence and waiver in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Relying on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, and the principles extracted from U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464, it held that a claimant who knowingly acquiesces in an allegedly wrongful action and approaches the court after substantial delay may be denied relief, particularly where the position of other parties has changed.

The Court further applied the principle that fence-sitters cannot seek the benefit of a selection-related claim after remaining inactive for years, and that relief should not ordinarily be granted where it would prejudice selected candidates or unsettle a completed recruitment process.

The Court treated the petitioners’ participation in the recruitment process as conduct amounting to acquiescence in the terms of the advertisement. Having participated in the process, taken the written examination and remained unsuccessful, they could not challenge the advertisement only after twelve years.

The delay was unexplained, and the challenge was brought after the recruitment process had materially progressed. Granting relief at that stage could prejudice persons selected under the advertisement, none of whom had been impleaded.

The failure to implead the Bihar State Health Society, the issuing authority, further weakened the maintainability of the challenge.

Qualification in the written examination did not create an enforceable right to appointment, particularly when the petitioners had not established any legal entitlement to appointment and sought to reopen a long-concluded selection process.

Applying the doctrine of laches and acquiescence, the Court declined to examine the petitioners’ challenge on merits.

The writ petition was dismissed for want of merit, and all pending applications were disposed of.