Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Appellant Cannot Say at One Time That a Process Is Valid to Gain an Advantage and Then Turn Around and Say It Is Invalid When the Result Is Unfavorable,” Rules High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh

11 November 2024 3:38 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court emphasizes the principle of estoppel, barring participants in selection processes from later challenging them.

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar dismissed an appeal challenging the selection process for the post of Medical Technologist at Sheri Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, reiterated the principle of estoppel, underscoring that candidates who participate in selection processes cannot later dispute their validity.

The case involved Qurat-ul-ain, who applied for the Medical Technologist post advertised by SKIMS in 2017. Out of the 20 advertised posts, only 15 candidates applied. Despite participating in the selection process, which included a written test and interview, Qurat-ul-ain later challenged the necessity of these steps, arguing that all eligible candidates should have been appointed directly based on merit.

Participation and Estoppel: The court observed that Qurat-ul-ain willingly participated in the selection process without raising objections at the outset. “The appellant cannot challenge the selection process after willingly participating in it,” the bench noted, citing the principle of estoppel.

Doctrine of Appropriation and Reprobation: The judgment also discussed the doctrine of appropriation and reprobation. “A candidate cannot approbate and reprobate, accepting the benefits of the process and then turning around to challenge it when the outcome is unfavorable,” the court stated, referencing several Supreme Court precedents, including Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal and Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan.

The court’s reasoning was firmly rooted in established legal principles. It emphasized that Qurat-ul-ain, by participating in the process and later failing to secure the required marks, could not legally contest the process. “The appellant is estopped under law from questioning the selection procedure after having subjected herself to it and being assessed based on it,” the bench remarked.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal articulated, “This conduct of the appellant clearly disentitles her from questioning the selection. The appellant cannot say at one time that a process is valid to gain an advantage and then turn around and say it is invalid when the result is unfavorable.”

The dismissal of the appeal reinforces the judiciary’s stance on the integrity of selection processes. By upholding the lower court’s decision, the High Court has sent a clear message about the application of the principle of estoppel and the doctrine of appropriation and reprobation. This judgment not only affirms the legality of the selection process at SKIMS but also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring that participants in selection processes cannot later contest their outcomes without legitimate grounds.

Date of Decision: 30th May 2024
 

Similar News