Failed Candidate Cannot Challenge Selection Process After Participation: Allahabad HC

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the selection of a Reader in the Unani Department, reiterating the well-established legal principle that a candidate who consciously participates in a recruitment process cannot later challenge its validity upon being unsuccessful.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta adjudicated upon the dispute involving the appointment to the post of Reader/Jarahat in Government Unani Medical Colleges. The Court emphasized that once a candidate takes a calculated chance by appearing in interviews and examinations without protest, they waive their right to question the methodology or the underlying advertisement simply because the outcome is not in their favor.

Legal Primacy of Service Rules Over Central Guidelines

The petitioner had contended that the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement were based on an outdated state law, the United Provinces Indian Medicine Act, 1939, which had been superseded by the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. It was argued that the recruitment should have adhered to regulations framed under the Central Act.

However, the Court clarified the constitutional position regarding state public services. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...so far as the State Public Services or the State Public Service Commissions are concerned that is the subject matter exclusively available to the State and proviso to Constitution of India, 1950 permits the State to frame rules to prescribe the condition for selection for State Public Service. In terms thereof, the 1990 Rules have been framed by the State which prescribe the qualification for selection of Reader (Jaharat) in Government Unani Medical Colleges. Therefore, the State Rules were framed by the State in accordance with the constitutional scheme. Therefore, the State Rules shall holds the field in the matter of Selection for State Public Service."

Interpretation of 'Preferential Qualification'

Addressing the petitioner's claim for preference due to a postgraduate degree, the Court noted that preferential qualifications do not entitle a candidate to automatic selection. Citing Secretary, Health Department and FW and others vs. Dr. Anita Puri and others and State of U.P. v. Om Prakash, the Court explained that "preference" only acts as a tilting factor when two candidates are otherwise equally positioned in merit.

Regarding the prayer for a Writ of Quo Warranto against the successful candidate, the Court noted that such a writ does not lie against the post of a Professor or teacher as they are employees of a statutory body and not public officers in that specific context, relying on Kundan Singh versus State of UP and others and Dr. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P. and others.

Background:

The dispute arose from Advertisement No. 2 of 2019-20 issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission for one unreserved post of Reader/Jarahat. The petitioner applied, was interviewed, but failed to secure the recommendation, which instead went to the fourth respondent. The petitioner then challenged the recommendation and the advertisement itself, arguing that the qualifications were repugnant to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and that her postgraduate status was ignored despite being a "preferential" requirement. The Court ultimately found no irregularity in the advertisement as it aligned with the Uttar Pradesh State Ayurvedic and Unani Colleges Teachers’ Service Rules, 1990, framed under Constitution of India, 1950. Following the precedents in Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others Vs. Anil Joshi and others ( "(2013) 11 SCC 309": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 125) and Madan Lal v. State of J&K ( "(1995) 3 SCC 486": 1995 CaseBase(SC) 452), the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that rules under Constitution of India, 1950 override conflicting recommendatory regulations from central bodies.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT - A No. - 835 of 2022
Case Title: Dr. Albina vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Syed Fahim Ahmed
For the Respondent(s): Sri Avneesh Tripathi, Sri Gaurav Singh, Sri Utkarsh Singh, Sri Gautam Baghel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 184