On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, we find that there is no scope for interference with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner could not have challenged the eligibility criteria in the advertisement after participating in the selection process. The Tribunal rightly considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a candidate participating in the selection process would not be permitted to turn around and challenge the advertisement after he is unsuccessful. Though the cut-off marks for the candidates from Sports-Open category were 13, the petitioner had secured only 11 marks and hence, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered any further. The Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner was not a meritorious candidate and hence, he could not have effectively challenged the advertisement after he had participated in the selection process. We do not find any illegality, whatsoever in the order of the Tribual. The order of the Tribunal is just and proper and is based on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171 ( Dhananjay Malik & Others Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others ), 2010(12) SCC 576 ( Manish Kumar Shahi Versus State of Bihar & Others ) and 2011(1)
