JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the appointments on the post of Lower Division Clerks under the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, had applied in pursuance of the advertisement made by the respondents on 5.8.1997 for recruitment and selection on the post of Lower Division Clerks in the offices of respondents No. 3 and 4. Out of three posts so advertised, two posts were for the candidates of General Category and one post was reserved for the candidate belonging to scheduled castes. Petitioner was not selected and all the three posts had been filled up by the candidates of General Category. Thus, the petition has been filed challenging the selection on the grounds that the post reserved for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste cannot be filled up by General Category candidate; and secondly the respondents cannot fix-up a criterion for selection higher than the prescribed under the Rules as his grievance is that the advertisement itself provided that in addition to other qualifications, the candidate must be efficient to type words per minute in Hindi and words per minute in English. Petitioner states that the criteria of typing under the Rules is less than what has been mentioned in the advertisement. Therefore, the selection itself vitiates. 3. Respondents have filed reply raising the preliminary issues/objections, firstly, that the petitioner has not impleaded the person appointed against the reserved post and as such the writ petition is not maintainable; secondly, the respondents have a right even to fix a qualification/eligibility higher than what has been prescribed under the Rules as the rule provides merely for the minimum; and thirdly, once the petitioner has faced the selection with his eyes open without challenging the eligibility prior to his appearance, he cannot raise all these issues merely because he could not succeed. 4. 4. Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (for short, `the Rules') provides for reservation of vacancies for the members of Scheduled Castes/Tribes; but the proviso to Sub-rule (3) provides that if a suitable candidate from the reserved category is not available for filling up the vacancy so reserved, the vacancy can be filled-up by appointment of candidate of other lists or the said vacancy can be carried forward for next year. Therefore, the rule itself permits that in case suitable candidate from reserved category is not available, the post can be filled up from the candidate of other categories. As per the respondents, neither the petitioner nor anybody else belonging to reserved category was found suitable for the post and if it has been filled-up from general category of candidate, no fault can be found in it. 5. Once the posts have been filled up, rightly or wrongly, the petitioner was under a legal duty to implead such persons so appointed as no order can be passed adversely affecting ----- their back and the petition is not maintainable on this ground. Ishwar Singh v. Kuldeep Singh, 1995 (Suppl) 1 SCC 179 ; Bhagwati & ors. v. Subordinate Service Selection Board, Haryana, 1995 (Suppl) 2 SCC 663 ; Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam & Ors, (1996) 6 SCC 419 ; J. Jose Dhanapaul v. S. Thomas & Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 587 ; Arun Tiwari & Ors. v. Zile Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 331 ; and Azar Hasan & Ors. v. District Judge, Saharanpur, (1998) 3 SCC 246 ) . 6. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'bie Supreme Court, in M/s. Pannalal Binjraj & Ors., v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1957 SC 397 , had explained the scope of estoppel observing that once an order is passed against a person and without raising any objection he submits to the jurisdiction or complies with such order, he cannot be permitted to challenge the said order merely because he could not succeed there, for the reason that such conduct of that person would disentitle him for any relief before the Court. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maj. Chandrabhan Singh v. Latalat Ullah Khan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1814 . 7. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maj. Chandrabhan Singh v. Latalat Ullah Khan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1814 . 7. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and found that he would not succeed in the examination, or after declaration of the result if he found that he could not succeed, he has no right to maintain a petition before the High Court for the reason that he has acquisanced to the process. The said judgment was approved and relied upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K, & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1088 8. In State of Punjab v. Krishan Niwas, AIR 1997 SC 2349 , the Hon'ble Apex Court examined a case where the services of the employee were terminated in exercise of the powers under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. The Appellate Court changed the order of conviction. In the Departmental Appeal, the order of dismissed was converted into that of a lesser punishment. The employee had acted upon it and joined the post. He was held not entitled to challenge the reduced punishment as he was estopped by his conduct. 9. In Union of India & Anr. v. N. Chandrasekharan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 795 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under - "It is not in dispute that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found that they were not selected, by challenging that procedure...." 10. Similar view has been reiterated in Suneeta Aggarwal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 615 . 11. Similar principle had been made applicable even in contractual matters. (Vide State of Orissa v. Narain Prasad, (1996) 5 SCC 740 ; and State of Rajasthan & ors. v. Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar & Party & Anr., JT 2000 (4) SC 186 . 12. Thus, in view of the above, the petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition dismissed. *******