Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act

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