Selection challenge barred after participation without protest; amended promotion rules and test-interview procedure upheld.

Candidates who knowingly participated in a fresh selection process without timely objection were barred from challenging the procedure after failing to secure selection, as waiver and estoppel applied absent patent illegality or proven prejudice. The Court also held that the amended 2001 promotion rules governed Class IV to Class III promotion, and the written test and interview pattern adopted under that framework was not invalidated on the appellants' grounds. The Division Bench result was sustained, with only a limited equitable direction allowing provisional continuance in service pending the next selection process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether candidates who participated in the fresh selection process without protest could later challenge the procedure after being declared unsuccessful; (ii) Whether the applicable rules for promotion from Class IV to Class III posts required the written test and interview pattern prescribed by the amended rules or the earlier administrative letter.

Issue (i): Whether candidates who participated in the fresh selection process without protest could later challenge the procedure after being declared unsuccessful.

Analysis: The candidates were aware that the fresh selection would be conducted on the basis of a written test carrying ninety marks and an interview carrying ten marks. They participated in that process without objecting at the relevant time. The law consistently bars a candidate from assailing the selection methodology after taking a chance in the process and failing to secure selection. A party cannot approbate and reprobate, nor can it challenge the process only after an unfavourable result where no patent illegality or prejudice is shown.

Conclusion: The challenge to the selection process was barred by estoppel and waiver, and the appellants were not entitled to relief on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicable rules for promotion from Class IV to Class III posts required the written test and interview pattern prescribed by the amended rules or the earlier administrative letter.

Analysis: The amended Rules of 2001 governed promotion from Class IV to Class III posts and had to be read along with the power of the High Court to issue directions under the rules. The provisions were not wholly free from ambiguity, but the Court found no glaring illegality in the procedure adopted. The interpretive dispute over the allocation of marks did not, in the facts of the case, justify setting aside the selection, particularly when the candidates suffered no demonstrated prejudice.

Conclusion: The selection procedure could not be invalidated on the basis urged by the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the Division Bench was sustained, with only a limited equitable direction permitting continuation in service on a provisional basis pending the next selection process. The appeal stood finally concluded against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate who knowingly participates in a selection process without timely objection cannot later challenge the procedure after being unsuccessful, unless a patent illegality or proven prejudice is shown.

---