IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6142 of 2000 DR.ARJUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 10. 16.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the private respondent no. 11. No one appears on behalf of the University, the Commission, Governing Body of the College or private respondents 8, 9, 10 and 12. The controversy relates to appointment on the post of Lecturer in Home Science in Kedar Sant Ramashay College, Sarairanjan District Samastipur under the Lalit Narayan Mithila University. Petitioners are stated to hold qualifications of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine Science and Surgery. It is their case that under the statute framed by the University for appointment of Lecturer in Home Science a Second Class Master’s degree of Home Science as also the Ayurvedacharya (BAMS) were requisite qualifications. Contrary to the same the advertisement issued through the Commission on request by the University limited it to person with a Master Degree with at least 55% marks. Learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly acknowledged that being aware of the eligibility provided for in the statute notwithstanding that the same did not find incorporation in the advertisement issued on 9.9.1988, the petitioners did not object and applied in response to the same in the fond hope of selection. That they have learnt from “grape wine” sources that they have not been selected only for the reason of their BAMS qualification not provided in the advertisement contrary to the statute. If the advertisement was defective it was for the petitioners to raise objection at the appropriate time requiring fresh advertisement. Once the petitioners subjected themselves to the advertisement and have lost out by non- selection they cannot be permitted to turn around and question the advertisement itself. To put it euphemistically they cannot approbate and reprobate. Having taken their chance, and having being unsuccessful they cannot now be permitted to turn around and question the very advertisement in response to which they applied without demure. In (2007) 8 SCC 100 (Union of India & ors Vs S. Vinodh Kumar & ors.) it has been observed as follows at paragraph 18:- “18. It is also well settled that those candidates who have taken part in the selection process knowing full well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.” The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)