Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court

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
 

Latest Legal News