1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:

                   “a. That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and Annexure P-3 being illegal be quashed and set aside.

                   b. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents and the result qua the interview held on 28.02.2024 for the post of Mid Day Meal worker in Government Middle School Dhaun Devi, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh be declared.

                   c. That the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to initiate an enquiry against the respondents for the long delay in not declaring the result of interview held on 28.02.2024 for the post of Mid Day Meal worker, without any reason.”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that vide advertisement dated 17.02.2024, respondent No.5 invited applications from the interested candidates along with their bio data for the post of Mid-Day Meal Worker. Pursuant to afore advertisement, petitioner, along with other persons, applied, vide application dated 23.02.2024, for the post in question. Petitioner along with other candidates was interviewed on 28.02.2024, but since no result was declared, she has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs reproduced hereinabove.

3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein it came to be transpired that result of the selection process initiated, in terms of advertisement dated 17.02.2024, could not be declared for the reason that many applicants had opposed the selection of respondent No.6, Smt. Kala Devi, who despite her being President of School Management Committee, participated in the selection process for the post of Mid Day Meal Worker. Having taken note of afore objections raised on behalf of other applicants, respondents, instead of declaring the result of the selection process conducted in terms of advertisement dated 17.02.2024, issued another advertisement dated 07.06.2024, thereby calling fresh applications for the post in question. Petitioner herein also applied in terms of fresh advertisement, but fact remains that she was unable to secure place in the merit list.

4. By way of filing rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents, petitioner herein has claimed that since the earlier selection process initiated, in terms of notice dated 17.02.2024, was not cancelled, coupled with the fact that selected candidate i.e. respondent No.6 was otherwise not eligible to participate in the selection process for the post of Mid-Day Meal Worker on account of her being the Chairperson of the School Management Committee, petitioner herein, who was at serial No.2 of the merit list, ought to have been given appointment against the post in question. Ms. Kiran Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that entire selection cannot be said to be vitiated on account of participation of respondent No.6 in the selection process, rather in that eventuality, candidate next in line ought to have been given appointment. She further submitted that respondents had never cancelled the earlier selection process initiated in terms of advertisement dated 17.02.2024, as such, participation, if any, of the petitioner, in terms of fresh notification dated 07.06.2024, may not be of much relevance, rather she on the basis of result in the selection process conducted vide notification dated 17.02.2024 ought to have been given appointment against the post in question.

5. To the contrary, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that respondent No.6 was Pradhan of School Management Committee, who had actually invited applications for appointment of the Mid-Day Meal Worker, coupled with the fact that she herself participated in the selection process and was declared successful, there was no occasion, if any, to declare the result of selection process conducted in terms of advertisement dated 17.02.2024. He submitted that though earlier selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 17.02.2024 may not have been cancelled by way of speaking order, but with the issuance of fresh notice/advertisement dated 07.06.2024, thereby calling upon for fresh application for the post of Mid-Day Meal Worker at GMS Dhuan Devi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, same was vitiated/cancelled automatically. Mr. Chauhan, further argued that otherwise also, present petition is not maintainable on account of the fact that petitioner, after her having failed in second selection process, has approached this Court, which is not permissible under law.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, though this Court finds that there is no dispute qua the fact that the petitioner herein was at serial No.2 of the merit list prepared by the respondents pursuant to selection process initiated in terms of notice/advertisement dated 17.02.2024, but since it is not in dispute that respondent No.6, who was declared selected, could not have participated in the selection process on account of her being President of the School Management Committee, coupled with the fact that many candidates opposed her selection, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while initiating fresh selection process for the post in question. Though there is no document adduced on record by the respective parties suggestive of the fact that earlier selection process initiated, in terms of notice/advertisement dated 17.02.2024, was cancelled, but since it is not in dispute that respondent No.6 was not given appointment despite her being at serial No.1 of the merit list and even fresh advertisement dated 07.06.2024 stands issued, earlier selection process initiated, vide notice/advertisement dated 17.02.2024, can be said to have been automatically cancelled. After initiation of fresh selection process with the issuance of advertisement dated 7.6.2024, the petitioner herein participated therein but was not selected, as such, after having participated in the selection process and failing therein, now at this stage, the petitioner cannot take a U-turn and challenge the selection process. The petitioner is estopped from laying challenge to the selection process, more so, when she has failed to pinpoint any irregularity or illegality in the selection process.

7. By now, it is well settled that a candidate, after having participated in a selection process, cannot, at a later point in time, turn around and challenge the same. It is settled law that a process of selection cannot be challenged by an unsuccessful candidate by pointing to certain irregularities here and there in the process of which he was aware, once the result is not to his liking. Relief, in such a case, is to be declined by applying the principles of estoppel, acquiescence and/or waiver. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Institute of Development Studies and another vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others, (2016) 1 SCC 454, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

                   “12. The contention of the respondent no.1 that the short- listing of the candidates was done by few professors bypassing the Director and the Chairman does not appear to be correct. From perusal of the documents available on record it appears that short-listing of the candidates was done by the Director in consultation with the Chairman and also senior Professors. Further it appears that the Committee constituted for the purpose of selection consists of eminent Scientists, Professor of Economic Studies and Planning and other members. The integrity of these members of the Committee has not been doubted by the respondent- writ petitioner. It is well settled that the decision of the Academic Authorities about the suitability of a candidate to be appointed as Associate Professor in a research institute cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the fact that the candidates so selected possessed all requisite qualifications and experience and, therefore, their appointment cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of qualification and experience. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Institute in appointing respondent nos. 2 to 4 on the post of Associate Professor.

                   13. Be that as it may, the respondent, without raising any objection to the alleged variations in the contents of the advertisement and the Rules, submitted his application and participated in the selection process by appearing before the Committee of experts. It was only after he was not selected for appointment, turned around and challenged the very selection process. Curiously enough, in the writ petition the only relief sought for is to quash the order of appointment without seeking any relief as regards his candidature and entitlement to the said post.

                   14. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.

                   15. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585, a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held: (SCC P. 591, para 15) "15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal vs. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: (AIR p.432, para 9) '9. ....It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of r raising the present technical point."

                   16. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J & K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that: (SCC p. 493, para 9) "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 1986 Supp SCC 285, 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 challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."

                   17. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: (SCC p. 584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."

                   18. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under: (SCC p. 320, para 24) "24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."

                   19. So far as the finding recorded by the Division Bench on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the appellant Institute is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, we are not bound to go into that question, which is kept open."

8. In Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Bihar and others (2017) 4 SCC 357, a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under:

                   "13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that:

                   "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724)".

9. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah (2009) 3 SCC 227, where it was held to be well settled that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.

10. In Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations:

                   "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v.State of J. and K. (1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v.State of Uttaranchal and Ors.(2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 515."

11. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.

12. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that:

                   "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome."

13. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur, it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non- selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey (2015) 11 SCC 493,this Court held that:

                   "17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had r participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted."

                   This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam's case (supra)."

14. Since it stands duly established on record that the writ petitioner before laying challenge to selection process had participated in selection process without any demur, now it is not open for her to lay challenge to selection process after having been declared unsuccessful that too on the bald and baseless allegations.

15. At this stage, Ms. Kiran Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that present petition was filed on 15.06.2024 i.e. before issuance of fresh notification dated 07.06.2024, but once it is not in dispute that petitioner participated in second selection process and she failed, no relief, as prayed for, can be granted.

16. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.