IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6637 of 2002 MUMTAZ ALAM & ORS ………………………… Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS …………….. Respondents. ----------- 3. 21.01.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners claim to have been the applicants for appointment to the posts of Constable in the Central Range, Patna in response to Advertisement No. 1/1998. It is their case that 50% seats were reserved for Home Guards. Despite being successful in the selection and meeting other parameters, they were denied appointment on the plea that they were Home Guards from the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondents in their counter affidavit enclosing therewith Advertisement No. 1/1998 have urged that the advertisement itself provided that the Home Guards from other States shall not get the benefit of 50% reservation in their favour. The issue of correctness of the condition now becomes academic. It was for the petitioners to assail the advertisement itself. They accepted the advertisement for they applied in response to the same. Once their claims have been denied under the terms of the advertisement itself and they have become unsuccessful, they cannot be permitted to turn around and assail the advertisement itself. This principle of approbate and reprobate has been laid down and followed consistently by the Courts. The application is dismissed. dk ( Navin Sinha, J. )