Summary
An unsuccessful candidate for direct recruitment as Music Teacher later claimed that the vacancy should instead have been filled by her promotion from another school under the same management. The Court held that her unprotested participation in the advertised selection barred that later challenge. It allowed the selected candidate’s appeals and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, leaving other issues unexamined.
Issues
- Whether an unsuccessful participant could challenge direct recruitment after seeking appointment through that very process.
- Whether it was necessary to decide the schools’ unit status and promotion eligibility.
Held
- A candidate who knowingly participates in a selection without objecting to the advertised method cannot challenge that method after an unfavourable result. The Court applied settled participation-and-acquiescence authorities to this challenge. (¶ 4–10)
- The respondent neither objected to direct recruitment at advertisement nor claimed promotion then; she applied, participated and ranked below the appellant. She could not subsequently contend that direct recruitment should not have occurred. The High Court’s contrary approach was erroneous. (¶ 11)
- Because this threshold objection disposed of the challenge, the Court did not determine whether the two schools formed a common unit or whether promotion would otherwise have been available under Rule 43. (¶ 11–12)
Result
Appeals allowed; Single Judge’s order set aside and O.P. No. 36563 of 2002 dismissed as not maintainable.