THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 575 of 2010. Km. Deepti Sharma D/O Sh. Ramdev Sharma, R/O 188, Imli Mohalla, Kankhal, Hardwar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Public Service Commmission, Uttarakhand, Ayog Bhawan, Gurukul Kangri Kankhal, Haridwar through its Secretary. 2. Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, District Nainital. …Respondents. Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.D.Kandpal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Date July 23, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to give benefit to the petitioner as provided by the notification dated 18- 7-2001 and 24-7-2006. Further prayer for issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to give benefit of horizontal reservation to woman candidate on the post of L.D.A. has been made. An advertisement was issued in the year 2007 by the respondent nol.1 for recruitment to the post of System Analyst cum Programmer including Lower Division Assistants of which last date of receiving application by the respondent no. 1 was 28-1-2008. In pursuance to the advertisement, the petitioner also applied for the post of L.D.A. as per the advertisement. Preliminary examination was held on 8-2-2009. The petitioner succeeded in the preliminary examination and she was called for to appear in the main examination which was held on 7-6-2009. Ultimately the petitioner was declared successful and she appeared in the interview, which was held on 24-10-2009. However, the name of the petitioner could not find place after the results of the interview were declared. The petitioner sought 2 information under the Right to Information Act. It was informed to the petitioner that benefit of reservation was not given to any female candidate. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has wrongly been deprived of the reservation available to women candidates as per Government Orders. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has raised a preliminary objection that at this stage when the recruitment has already been made and the posts have already been filled up in the High Court, the writ petition filed at a belated stage is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 further argued that since the petitioner had already participated in the interview and, ultimately, finding herself unsuccessful in the examination, this writ petition has been filed, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to question the validity of procedure adopted in the examination at such a late stage. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 also pointed out that after the interview was held on 24-10-2009, the final result was declared through the Internet much before the appointments were made against the advertised vacancies and the candidates were fully aware with regard to declaration of results through Internet, therefore, there has been inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. I have perused the record placed before this Court. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent no1 that the petitioner is estopped from questioning the procedure after she had participated at all stages of the examination has some force. It is well settled that a candidate cannot be allowed to question the procedure of recruitment after he had participated in the examination and having been declared unsuccessful subsequently. I am fortified in my view by the verdict of the Apex Court in the following cases. 3 The Apex Court in paragraph 9 of the case of Dhananjay Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others [(2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 171] has observed as under:- “9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.” In the case of Union of India and others Vs. S.Vinodh Kumar and others [(2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 100], the Apex Court has held in para 18 that “It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.” Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.54 of the case of K.A.Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines and others [(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 57]. Admittedly, in the instant case, the recruitment process has already come to an end after the appointments are made against the vacancies and the incumbents had already taken over charge of their respective posts. In such an event, it was further obligatory for the petitioner to have arrayed at least some of the successful candidates who could be affected in consequence of the orders passed in the writ petition but the petitioner has not even arrayed any one of the selected candidates as a respondent to the writ petition. This circumstance also goes against the petitioner. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP