Selection challenge barred after participation without protest where no reservation was shown in the notification

A selection challenge to the post of Member (Technical), CESTAT failed because the notification did not show that any post was reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates, and a mere SC/ST column in the application form did not create reservation. The petitioner had participated in the selection process and interview without protest, so the settled rule against challenging a process after taking a chance and failing applied. The later amendment to Rule 21 did not help because no specific reservation order for these appointments was shown and the objection was raised too late. The challenge was therefore not maintainable and no relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could challenge the selection to the post of Member (Technical), CESTAT on the ground that reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates ought to have been applied, and whether participation in the process without protest barred such challenge.

Analysis: The notification inviting applications did not indicate that any post was reserved. The presence of a column asking whether the applicant belonged to SC/ST did not amount to a declaration of reservation. The petitioner applied and participated in the interview without questioning the notification or the selection process. The settled principle applied was that a candidate who takes a chance in a selection process without protest cannot later assail the process merely because the result is unsuccessful. The Court also held that the later amendment to Rule 21 did not assist the petitioner, as no specific reservation order applicable to these appointments was shown and the challenge came too late.

Conclusion: The challenge to the selection process was not maintainable, and the petitioner was not entitled to relief.

---