JUDGMENT By the Court.—This intra Court appeal under the Rules of the Court has been preferred aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.11.2007 passed by the Honble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition No. 42748 of 1999 of the petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as petitioner). 2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee vide appointment letter 4.2.1983 issued by the Addl. Director of Education, Institute of Correspondence Courses, U.P., Allahabad and was posted in Patrachar Shiksha Sansthan (Institution of Correspondents Education) U.P., Allahabad. He was confirmed as a Class-IV employee vide order dated 18.9.1997 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) with effect from 10.2.1987 in accordance with U.P. Nideshalaya Lipik Verg Sewa Niymawali, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 1983 Rules). A selection was held for considering Class-IV employees for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. Written test was held on 31.6.1998 and interview on 4th and 5th August, 1998, as a result whereof, the candidates who qualified, were promoted to the post of Junior Clerk vide orders dated 7.8.1998 and 30.11.1998. The petitioner could not succeed in the aforesaid selection whereupon he filed a Writ Petition No. 42186 of 1999, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 8.1.1999 permitting him to make a representation to the authorities concerned, who were directed to decide the same within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof. Consequently, the petitioners representation was considered and decided by the Addl. Director of Education (Secondary) vide order dated 17.6.1999 rejecting his contention that the selection ought to have been held in accordance with U.P. Government Servants (Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 1994 Rules). It was observed that the petitioner had participated in selection and having failed to qualify, cannot be allowed to challenge the same. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.1999, the petitioner filed the aforesaid Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs : (a) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.6.99 (Annexure 10) passed by the respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.1999, the petitioner filed the aforesaid Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs : (a) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.6.99 (Annexure 10) passed by the respondent No. 3. (b) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner with all consequential service benefits on the post of Junior Clerk, with effect from the date, persons junior to him have been promoted as Junior Clerks. (c) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction calling for the record of the selection for the post of Junior Clerks referred to in the impugned order dated 17.6.1999 and then quash the same by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari. (d) Issue any other and further writ, order or direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (e) award cost of the present petition to the petitioner against the respondents." 3. The Honble Single Judge, having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has dismissed the writ petition by judgment impugned in this appeal on the following grounds : "Petitioner has undertaken written examination and in the same when he has failed, then he has proceeded to challenge. Once candidate has taken chance and has failed, then he is not at all entitled to make challenge qua selection proceedings. In this background claim of petitioner is unsustainable." 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the selection was held by the respondents wholly illegally and contrary to the Rules and, therefore, neither waiver nor estoppel could have deprived the petitioner from challenging the aforesaid selection and the Honble Single Judge has erred in law in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner having participated in the selection, subsequently, cannot challenge the same. He further contended that there was no relief sought by the petitioner for quashing the promotion orders, whereby other Class-IV employees were promoted to Class-III post in 1998 and, therefore, he had no occasion to implead the persons who were promoted in 1998 and the Honble Single Judge has erred in law in non-suiting the petitioner on the ground that he did not implead the persons who were promoted in the impugned selection. He lastly contended that since it is evident from a perusal of 1994 Rules that the same are applicable to all services including the impugned one, therefore, the selection ought to have been conducted on the criteria of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and the respondents have proceeded illegally by making selection holding a written test and interview, which was contrary to the Rules. Since the entire selection is in the teeth of 1994 Rules, it could not have been validated only for the reason that the petitioner has participated therein and is challenging the same after selection is finalized and the Honble Single Judge ought to have considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter, since it was a pure legal question going to the very root of the matter. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, though we are satisfied that the Honble Single Judge has rightly non suited the petitioner on the grounds referred to in his Lordships judgment, impugned in this appeal, yet in order to satisfy ourselves also as to whether the selection in question was rightly held by the respondents or not, we have also considered the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner with respect to applicability of 1994 Rules in the selection in question and are clearly of the view that the said Rules are not at all applicable to the case in hand. 1994 Rules are applicable to a recruitment by promotion to a post or service for which no consultation with the Public Service Commission is required on the principles to be followed in making promotions under U.P. Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 1954 Regulations) as amended from time to time, as is evident from Rule 1(3) of 1994 Rules. Thus, the application of 1994 Rules is not general and as wide as is being canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The said Rules are applicable only to a limited category of posts and service, for which, under 1954 Regulations, consultation of Public Service Commission is not required with respect to the principles to be followed in making promotions. This brings us to have a closure scrutiny of 1954 Regulations. 6. The said Rules are applicable only to a limited category of posts and service, for which, under 1954 Regulations, consultation of Public Service Commission is not required with respect to the principles to be followed in making promotions. This brings us to have a closure scrutiny of 1954 Regulations. 6. Regulation 6 of 1954 Regulations provides for the cases where consultation of the commission on the principles to be followed in making promotions or suitability of candidate for promotions is not required and the same is reproduced as under : "6. Promotion.—It shall not be necessary to consult the Commission on the principles to be followed in making promotion or on the suitability of candidates for promotion in the following cases namely : (a) promotions to those Group C posts, direct recruitment whereof is not made through the Commission or promotion from one non-gazetted post to another non-gazetted post; (b) promotion from Group C posts to Group B posts, or promotion from one gazetted post to another gazetted post, where promotion is the only source of recruitment : Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this regulation the persons substantively appointed by promotion against Service or posts prior to April 24, 1995, shall be deemed to have been substantively appointed on such services or posts and such appointments shall not be open for reconsideration." 7. Therefore, apparently 1994 Rules would be applicable where Regulation 6 of 1954 Regulations applies. However, 1954 Regulations are also not of general application and have no application to such services, which are regulated by the specific Rules and orders as is evident from the declaration made in 1954 Regulations, which reads as under : "In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to clause (3) of the Article 326 of the Constitution of India, and in supersession of the regulations published with Notification No. 1791/II-843-40, dated October 15, 1941, as subsequently amended, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to make the following regulations as respects the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh, other than services and posts to which appointments are made from among members of All-India Services, or are regulated by the rules and orders applicable to such services :" 8. Thus, 1954 Regulations, as we have already said, and, at pain of repetition, reiterate, is not applicable to services and posts to which appointment is regulated by the specific Rules and Orders applicable to such service. In respect to the post of Junior Clerk in Directorate of Education, it is not disputed that specific Rules have been framed in 1983 and, thus, 1954 Regulations have no application to the said service. That being so, 1994 Rules, which, in our view, are applicable only to such cases to which Regulation 6 of 1954 Regulations is applicable would also have no application since 1994 Rules cannot be read in isolation and, on the contrary, have to be read alongwith Regulation 6 of 1954 Regulations. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of 1983 Rules on page 183 of the paper book. Rule 5(2) provides 10 per cent recruitment from amongst Class-IV employees by promotion to the post of Routine Clerk. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have conducted selection for promotion in accordance with 1983 Rules as amended from time to time and the relevant Government Orders issued thereunder for making recruitment by promotion of Class-IV employees to Class-III posts. Thus, the submission advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, with regard to 1993 Rules, cannot be accepted. 9. Now coming to the other submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we find that though the petitioner did not seek any relief for quashing of the promotion orders whereby other Class-IV employees were promoted to Class-III posts in 1998, but in effect, he was challenging the said orders by assailing the selection which resulted in the said promotion, whereagainst his representation was rejected by the Addl. Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. by order dated 17.6.1999. In the absence of any relief sought for quashing of the promotion orders, whereby other Class-IV employees were promoted to Class-III posts, we fail to understand as to how the petitioner could have sought any relief, which would have direct adverse effect upon the validity of aforesaid promotion. Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. by order dated 17.6.1999. In the absence of any relief sought for quashing of the promotion orders, whereby other Class-IV employees were promoted to Class-III posts, we fail to understand as to how the petitioner could have sought any relief, which would have direct adverse effect upon the validity of aforesaid promotion. The petitioner, therefore, could not have been granted any effective relief for the reason that he challenged only the order dated 17.6.1999 whereby his representation was rejected and this order against which the said representation was made, since the order dated 17.6.1999 was only a consequential decision to the dispute raised by the petitioner. In the absence of any challenge to the said selection which was the basis of the representation, no relief could have been granted to the petitioner at all. Since, the petitioner did not implead any one, who would have otherwise been effected adversely, if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, we are clearly of the view that no relief could have been granted to the petitioner and the Honble Single Judge has rightly non suited the petitioner on such ground. 10. So far as the other ground on which the petitioner has been non suited by the Honble Single Judge is concerned, there also we find that law is well settled in this respect supporting the view taken by Honble Single Judge and no exception can be taken thereof. In Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, JT 1995 (2) SC 291, the Honble Supreme Court has held that once a person has taken a chance in the selection, he cannot resile back subsequently after having found himself unsuccessful and cannot be allowed to challenge the entire selection. 11. In Union of India and another v. N. Chandrashekharan and others, JT 1998 (1) SC 295, the Honble Apex Court has held 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. 11. In Union of India and another v. N. Chandrashekharan and others, JT 1998 (1) SC 295, the Honble Apex Court has held 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 they were not selected by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report." 12. In Utkal University etc. v. Dr. N.C. Sarangi and others, JT 1999 (1) SC 101 wherein it was held as under : "Both the University as well as the selected candidate have pointed out that this fact was known to the first respondent throughout. He did not, at any times, objected to the composition of the Selection Committee. He objected only after the selection was over and he was not selected. This would amount to waiver of such objection on the part of the first respondent." 13. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, 2002 (6) SCC 127 , the Honble Apex Court has held as under : "The law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not "palatable" to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process." 14. Following the judgments of the Honble Apex Court, some of them referred to hereinabove, an Honble Single Judge of this Court has also taken the same view in Kavindra Kumar v. Deputy Inspector General and others, 2003 (1) ESC 235 wherein it was held as under : "It is thus held that these writ petitions, challenging the criterion for promotion, are not maintainable at the instance of candidates who have participated in the selection without raising any objection." 15. This Bench has also taken similar view in Special Appeal No. 1222 of 2005, Km. This Bench has also taken similar view in Special Appeal No. 1222 of 2005, Km. Saurabh Vibhushan v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 11.9.2006 wherein it was held as under : "Now, after having failed to qualify in the selection the appellant has challenged the very qualification on the basis whereof the aforesaid selection has been made. In our view, the appellant having availed the opportunity of participating in the selection cannot be permitted to challenge the norms of the aforesaid selection." 16. In the present case also, the petitioner with open eyes, knowing the procedure of selection, actually participated, and only when the selection was finalized and promotion orders were issued, noticing that he has failed in the selection, he has challenged the very basis, i.e., the procedure applied by the respondents for the said selection and, therefore, the settled exposition of law, as discussed above, that no one can turn around and challenge the process of selection after having participated therein and after finding him unsuccessful would apply with full force in the present case. The Honble Single Judge, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition following the aforesaid legal exposition. We, therefore, do not find any legal or factual error in the judgment impugned in this appeal warranting any interference. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. ————