ORDER : 1. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks quashing of the result of written test held on 27.05.2007 for promotion from Scale-I Officer to Scale-II Officer in National Insurance Company. The petitioner also seeks for restraining the Respondents from publishing the promotion list for such promotion on the basis of the said examination. 2. As per the petitioner’s case, at the time of filing of the writ application in the year 2007, he was working as an Administrative Officer, Patna Branch No. 2 of National Insurance Office. Earlier National Insurance Company was one of the subsidiaries of General Insurance Company. There were other three subsidiary Companies also under General Insurance Company, namely, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, New India Insurance Company Limited and United India Insurance Company Limited. All of these four Companies now fall under the aegis of General Insurance (Public Sector) Association of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘GIPSA’) having full supervisory and controlling authority over all the four subsidiaries. It has been asserted that ‘GIPSA’, after it came into existence, had frozen the vacancies in the Companies for two to three years. On 04.08.2006, the vacancies were declared by ‘GIPSA’ for the years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. It is his claim that though the vacancies were declared on 4th August, 2006, cases for promotion for the vacancies of the year 2004-2005 were considered on the basis of old promotion policy according to which, the candidates were required to be considered in the ratio of 1:2 of the declared vacancies. Thus, against declared vacancies of 75 for the year 2004-2005, 150 candidates were considered. However, new promotion policy came to be implemented with effect from 02.02.2007. The petitioner has a grievance that his case for promotion was to be considered against the vacancies of the year 2005-2006 and, therefore, it should not have been considered strictly in terms of the old policy as done in case of vacancies for the year 2004-2005. The petitioner has a grievance that in terms of new policy, candidates have been considered in the ratio of 1:3 of the vacancies whereas as per the old policy it should have been in the ratio of 1:2. As per the new policy, therefore, number of persons considered increased substantially and thus diminishing / adversely affecting the petitioner’s chance to be selected. 3. As per the new policy, therefore, number of persons considered increased substantially and thus diminishing / adversely affecting the petitioner’s chance to be selected. 3. It is his further case that under the new policy, the candidates are to be considered for promotion only if they qualify in the written examination and parameters of seniority, qualifications and work record have not been given due weightage for consideration for promotion. His further grievance is that though written examination was introduced under the new policy but syllabus was not prescribed. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has pleaded in the writ application that the new promotion policy is ultra vires and it should be declared so by this Court. 4. It has been pleaded in the writ application that petitioner was compelled to take the written examination. He alleges gross irregularities and manipulations in the examinations. The petitioner also alleged irregularities in evaluation of question papers. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, emphasizing upon the irregularities committed in course of written test, has vehemently contended that subsequent promotion policy could not have been applied for the vacancies of earlier period i.e. for the vacancies existing prior to implementation of the new promotion policy. He has placed reliance upon various judgments of Supreme Court and this Court to support his contention that subsequent rules could not have been applied for filling up the vacancies for the years prior to new scheme. Reference in this regard may be made to Supreme Court judgments in case of V. Rangaiah and others Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others reported in A.I.R. 1983 SC 852 and D.P. Sharma and others Vs. Union of India and another reported in A.I.R. 1989 SC 1071. He has referred to other cases also in support of his contention but those judgments are not required to be referred to as I am not inclined to entertain this plea of the petitioner as he participated in the process of selection under new rule and after having become unsuccessful, he is challenging the policy itself. 6. This is settled position of law that principle of estoppel applies to candidates who appeared for examination after being made aware of the procedure for promotion before they participated in the written test. 6. This is settled position of law that principle of estoppel applies to candidates who appeared for examination after being made aware of the procedure for promotion before they participated in the written test. Such candidates, on not being selected, cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the promotion policy itself. If the petitioner had any valid objection, he could have challenged the entire process without participating in the written examination. A candidate cannot be allowed to be aprobate and reprobate at the same time. Reference may be made in this regard to Supreme Court judgments reported in (1998) 3 SCC 694 (Union of India and another Vs. N. Chandrasekharan and others) and (2008) 4 SCC 171 (Dhananjay Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others). 7. This is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the examination held under the new policy. However, after publication of result of the written test, in which he could not succeed, he is challenging the promotion policy itself on various grounds, which is not permissible, such challenge being barred by estoppel. Allegations of irregularities in the written examinations as made in the writ application are vague and not specific and are, therefore, not worth consideration. 8. This application is accordingly dismissed as it lacks merit.