Writ petition challenging recruitment to Assistant Grade-III posts in the Family Court, where written-test marks were irrelevant to final selection. The petitioner had participated without protest and filed late. Applying estoppel principles, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2025:CGHC:53646
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 529 of 2017
Pankaj Kumar Ambast S/o Shri Anil Sinha, Aged About 31 Years R/o Mandi Beriyar Village/ Post Gamhariya, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Law Department, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Judge, Family Court Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Nagar, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Registrar General, High Court, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Surendra Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Munna Ram Yadav, Aged About 27 Years R/o Sudhir Typing Centre, Khajanchi Toli, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Nagar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government
Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
2
Order on Board
03/11/2025
“ 10.I. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of subject matter of the present case, from the respondents.
II. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside/quash the selection of the respondent no. 4 with all subsequent orders and actions taken in pursuance to the advertisement.
III. Any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. ”
3
4
5
16.01.2017, after delay of about four months, without any explanation.
Karunesh Kumar and other (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706) in para – 21
& 25 held as under:-
“21. A candidate who has participated in the selection process adopted under the 2015 Rules is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning it thereafter, as held by this Court in the case of Anupal Singh (supra):
“55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12-10-2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised Notification dated 12-102014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised Notification dated 12-10- 2014 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.
56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712], it was held as under : (SCC p. 493, para 9)
“9. …The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of
6
interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.”
57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 395 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1345], it was held as under : (SCC p. 426, para 73)
“73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper.”
58. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792], it was held as under : (SCC p. 107, para 19) “19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [(2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] ….
xxx xxx xxx
It was further observed : (SCC p. 149, para 34)
‘34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not “palatable” to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.”
59. Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh [(2008) 4 SCC 619 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 9] wherein, it was held as under : (SCC pp. 645-46, para 59)
“59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] …. The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644], where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise. ”
10.The Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Manish Kumar Kashyap
and other v. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Public
7
Health and Engineering Department and others (2024 SCC OnLine
Chh 1753), wherein Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in para – 8 held as under:-
“8. In the matter of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486 in similar fact situation, the Supreme Court has held that a candidate who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot turn around finding the decision unpalatable and question the method of selection. Paragraph 9 of the report states as under:-
" 9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the Petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being Respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The Petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the Petitioners as well as the contesting Respondents concerned. Thus the Petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the Petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition
8
challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a Petitioner."
Sd/-
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
JUDGE
Nadim
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an unsuccessful candidate who participated without protest can challenge a selection process that made written-examination marks irrelevant to final selection?
Whether the belated filing of the petition, about four months after appointment of the selected candidate, bars interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar and otherRelied on¶9
(2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706) · Who else cites this
Pankaj Kumar Ambast
State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Law Department
The Judge, Family Court Jashpur Nagar
The Registrar General, High Court Chhattisgarh
Surendra Kumar Yadav
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
