Vacancy correction under reservation rules upheld; post-interview challenge barred by participation without protest.

Correction of category-wise vacancy calculation to align recruitment with the statutory reservation framework was held valid, as it did not alter eligibility, selection method or assessment criteria. Revising the vacancy break-up after advertisement was therefore not a change in the rules of selection. Candidates who participated in the interview with knowledge of the revised vacancies and without protest were barred from challenging the process after failing. The absorption of diploma holders against the general quota was accepted as a rectification of an earlier miscount, and the selection was not liable to be set aside on that ground. Article 142 could not be invoked to appoint candidates in excess of permissible reservation limits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revised requisition and the revised office memorandum merely corrected the wrongful calculation of category-wise vacancies and complied with the reservation framework; (ii) whether revising the break-up of vacancies after the advertisement amounted to changing the rules of the game during selection; (iii) whether candidates who participated in the interview without protest were estopped from challenging the revised notification and selection; (iv) whether the High Court was justified in faulting the absorption of diploma holders against the general quota and in setting aside the selection; (v) whether directions could be issued to accommodate the 906 unappointed candidates by invoking Article 142.

Issue (i): Whether the revised requisition and the revised office memorandum merely corrected the wrongful calculation of category-wise vacancies and complied with the reservation framework.

Analysis: The revised requisition was found to have been issued after reworking the cadre strength and actual working strength to correct an earlier mistake in counting category-wise vacancies, particularly the incorrect treatment of diploma holders. The statutory scheme required reservation to be worked out against cadre strength and the recruitment authority was empowered to determine vacancies in accordance with the prevalent reservation rules. The revised figures were adopted to align the recruitment with the prescribed reservation percentages.

Conclusion: The revised requisition and office memorandum were a valid rectification of the earlier wrongful calculation and were consistent with the applicable reservation law.

Issue (ii): Whether revising the break-up of vacancies after the advertisement amounted to changing the rules of the game during selection.

Analysis: The change was confined to the category-wise distribution of vacancies and did not alter eligibility, the method of selection, or the criteria for assessment. The correction was made to ensure compliance with the statutory reservation structure, and was therefore materially different from cases where selection criteria or viva-voce requirements were introduced midstream. The modification did not amount to a change in the rules governing selection.

Conclusion: The revised vacancy break-up did not amount to changing the rules of the game.

Issue (iii): Whether candidates who participated in the interview without protest were estopped from challenging the revised notification and selection.

Analysis: The candidates appeared in the interview with knowledge of the revised vacancies and took a chance on the outcome. A candidate who participates in the selection process without objection cannot, after failing, turn around and challenge the process merely because the result is unpalatable. The conduct of the unsuccessful candidates attracted the settled principle of estoppel by participation.

Conclusion: The unsuccessful candidates were estopped from challenging the revised notification and the selection after participating in the interview without protest.

Issue (iv): Whether the High Court was justified in faulting the absorption of diploma holders against the general quota and in setting aside the selection.

Analysis: The materials showed that the diploma holders had been absorbed against the general quota and were wrongly counted against the OBC quota in the earlier calculation. The High Court's adverse finding on the legality of their absorption overlooked the factual and legal position that the correction was made to remove the earlier miscount and to maintain the reservation structure. The selection could not be annulled on that basis.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in disturbing the selection on the basis of the diploma holders' absorption.

Issue (v): Whether directions could be issued to accommodate the 906 unappointed candidates by invoking Article 142.

Analysis: The 906 candidates had not been issued appointment orders because doing so would have exceeded the permissible reservation limits. Article 142 cannot be used to override express statutory limits or to create appointments contrary to the reservation law. The selected candidates had no indefeasible right to appointment merely because they were recommended.

Conclusion: No direction could be issued under Article 142 to appoint the 906 candidates.

Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the revised requisition and consequential selection were legally sustainable, the unsuccessful candidates could not upset the process after participating in it, and the High Court's judgment cancelling the selection was liable to be set aside; age relaxation was granted as a one-time measure for future recruitment.

Ratio Decidendi: A correction of category-wise vacancy calculation to align recruitment with the statutory reservation scheme does not amount to changing the rules of selection, and candidates who participate without protest are barred from challenging the process after failure.

---