Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High 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