Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Participation in Selection Process Precludes Challenge – Orissa High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions on Assistant Professor Appointments

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment today, the Orissa High Court, led by Justice Sashikanta Mishra, dismissed two writ petitions challenging the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Professor in Dentistry. The court underscored a vital principle, stating, “Having participated in the selection process, the candidates cannot question the procedure adopted therein.”

The petitions, filed by Dr. Tribikram Debata and Dr. Nimai Charan Mishra, contested the requirement of three years’ Senior Resident experience under the Odisha Medical Education Service Rules, 2013, for eligibility for the said post. The petitioners argued that this criterion was contrary to the Dental Council of India regulations and sought relief from the court.

However, the court observed, “The petitioners having not challenged the selection process at the relevant time but willfully participated therein, are estopped from challenging the same.” This observation effectively barred the petitioners from re-litigating the issue they had acquiesced to by participating in the selection process.

In its analysis, the court noted that the Odisha Medical Education Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, which do not require three years of Senior Resident experience, could not be retroactively applied to the selection process initiated under the 2013 Rules. As the petitioners did not meet the necessary experience criteria on the cut-off date as per the 2013 Rules, their candidature was deemed ineligible.

The court’s decision to dismiss the writ petitions echoes its commitment to uphold the principles of administrative law and judicial fairness. Advocates representing various parties, including Ms. Pami Rath, Mr. Saswat Das, and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, presented their arguments, but the court found no grounds to interfere with the OPSC’s decision. This ruling sets a precedent for future cases where the eligibility and selection process criteria are contested after participation.                                              

 D.D -10-Nov-2023

Dr. Tribikram Debata VS State of Odisha and others

Similar News