JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, J. - Challenge is to an order dated 10.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.4448/2019 whereby, the writ of certiorari sought by the petitioners for quashing entire recruitment for the position of Associate Professor, Professor and Assistant Professor initiated vide Advertisement No.AB/Estt./2017/437 dated June 19, 2017, MANIT Circular No.F.No.11/10(1)/768 dated 07.11.2017 and MANIT Circular No.AB/Estt./2018/1976 dated January 3, 2018 and for quashing of consequential appointment has been negatived. 2. The sole reason which weighed with learned Single Judge was that the petitioners having participated in the selection process cannot turn around and question the same having failed to find placement in the select list. 3. Petitioners take exception to the impugned order on the ground that the criteria which were adhered to for selection by relaxing the criteria laid down when the advertisement was issued was never made public. And, it was only when the select list was finalized, the petitioners came to know about the changes which were ushered in during process of selection. 4. It is urged that it is not the expansion of zone of consideration with the relaxed norms with which the petitioners were aggrieved. Their concern was the manner in which the ineligible persons were brought within the zone of consideration by the Association of Persons being part of Board of Governors which comprised of these ineligible Faculty Members who later found place in select list. It is urged that meeting of the 50th Board of Governors took place on 06.10.2017, the minutes of meeting displayed by the MANIT on its official website did not contain the Item Head C-9. It is urged that it was only in the internal meeting held by the MANIT on 30.10.2017, the fact regarding relaxing of criteria came to be known in public domain. It is urged that it was only in the internal meeting held by the MANIT on 30.10.2017, the fact regarding relaxing of criteria came to be known in public domain. It is contended that learned Single Judge glossed over vital fact that the relaxation of criteria for selection benefited the members who were integral part of the Committee of the Deans, HODs, Chairman Centre and Coordinator of Scrutiny Committee which held its meeting on 06.02.2018 whereby, certain changes were effected qua credit points for conference, contrary to the stipulations in the First Statutes of the National Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Statutes, 2017, framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 26 of the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007. 5. We extensively heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 6. Evidently, the appellants are existing faculty members of NITS who participated with others who were later selected to different positions. The record reveals that first advertisement was issued on 19.06.2017 stating : Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology Bhopal - 03 No.AB/Estt./2017/437 Monday, June 19, 2017 RECRUITMENT FOR FACULTY POSITIONS MANIT Bhopal an Institute of national importance, established by the Ministry of HRD, Government of India for fostering technical education and research in frontier areas invites applications from Indian Nationals for following full-time faculty positions in various departments of Engineering, Science, Architecture, Humanities and Management: Name of Post Pay Band Academic Grade Pay Associate Professor PB-4 Rs. 37400-67000 Rs. 9500 Professor PB-4 Rs. 37400-67000 Rs. 10500 Professor HAG - Rs. 67000-79000 --- The candidates shall have Ph.D in the relevant/equivalent discipline (except in the Architecture) and shall have first class in all the preceeding degrees. Reservation if applicable shall be as per GOI Norms. Detailed Information about qualification, experience and other terms and conditions along with Application form may be downloaded from Institute website: www.manit.ac.in. Application Form, duly filled in along with requisite fee, should reach to the Assistant Registrar Establishment on or before 10/07/2017. The required fee of Rs.1000.00 shall be paid by way of DD in favour of Director, MANITBhopal payable at Bhopal. 7. The above advertisement was followed by the Circular No.11/10(1)/768 dated 07.11.2017 wherein, certain relaxation in eligibility criteria was notified. Application Form, duly filled in along with requisite fee, should reach to the Assistant Registrar Establishment on or before 10/07/2017. The required fee of Rs.1000.00 shall be paid by way of DD in favour of Director, MANITBhopal payable at Bhopal. 7. The above advertisement was followed by the Circular No.11/10(1)/768 dated 07.11.2017 wherein, certain relaxation in eligibility criteria was notified. It stated : Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology Bhopal - 03 F. No. 11/10(1)/768 Dated: 07.11.2017 CIRCULAR This is in reference to MHRD letter F.No.33-9/2011-TS.III dated 06.10.2017 regarding recommendations of anomaly committee which allows onetime relaxation of existing Assistant Professors of the Institute to apply for the post of Associate Professor in AGP Rs.9500. In this regard eligible Associate Professors of the Institute (having Six years of working experience after Award of Ph.D at the level of Assistant Professor OR Nine years of total working experience with Ph.D at the level of Assistant Professor) are advised to complete the attached application form and summery sheet and submit the form along with self attested all necessary documents (proofs of claim) latest by 13.11.2017 till 5:00 PM to Assistant Registrar (Establishment). 8. That, another Circular No.AB/Estt./2018/1976 dated 03.01.2018 was issued; whereby, with relaxed eligibility criteria, applications were invited from the Associate Professors becoming eligible for the post of Professor in the light of MHRD communication dated 17.11.2017. The Circular reads thus : Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal 462003 (An Institute of National Importance under Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India) No. AB/Estt./2018/1976 Dated: 03.01.2018 CIRCULAR Subject: Invitation of applications from Associate Professors becoming eligible for the post of Professor in light of MHRD communication dated 17th November, 2017. MHRD has communicated vide F. No. 33/9/2011-TS-III dated 17.11.2017 the one time relaxation for existing faculty members of NITS (enclosed at Annexure A). Accordingly, Associate Professors who have become eligible to apply for the post of Professor as per above MHRD communication may apply for the same through prescribed application form enclosed at Annexure B) on or before 09.01.2018 along with Bank Draft of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) in favour of Director, MANIT, Bhopal, payable at Bhopal. Such applications may be furnished to Establishment Section either in person or through normal Daak movement system on or before the closing date. 1000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) in favour of Director, MANIT, Bhopal, payable at Bhopal. Such applications may be furnished to Establishment Section either in person or through normal Daak movement system on or before the closing date. It may be noted by all concerned that only cumulative credit points earned by the candidates upto 21.08.2017 will be considered. Those who have already applied against advertisement no. AB/Estt./2017/437, Dated 19.06.2017 need not apply afresh. Authority: Approval of Director dated: 03.01.2018 Asstt. Registrar (Estt.) 9. Thus, as rightly observed by learned Single Judge, the petitioners before participating in the selection process were duly aware about the facts as to the relaxation accorded to existing faculty by various orders issued by the Competent Authority. The petitioners having not raised any objections to these relaxation which, in fact, led to expansion of zone of consideration, did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners' right to participate in the selection. 10. Perusal of the decision by the Board of Governors in its 50th meeting dated 06.10.2017 and the Circular issued on 07.11.2017 reflects that the object for relaxing the eligibility criteria for existing faculty was to widen the field of consideration. And, since the petitioners had equal chance to compete, the action of respondents cannot be said to have offended Article 14 of the Constitution. Be that as it may. The petitioners were aware of these changes which they did not object. Later, having not selected, they challenged the selection process and the selection which, in our considered opinion, is rightly negatived by learned Single Judge by relying on the decision in D. Sarojakumari vs R. Helen Thilakom, (2017) 9 SCC 478 , by holding: "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is not inclined to admit this petition as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 that the petitioners have already participated in the selection process and at that time no grievance was made by them. The petitioners have also admitted that after participating in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor, the petitioners, although selected for Assistant Professor at AGP Rs.8000/-, have not been inducted as Associate Professor with AGP Rs.9500/- due to clarifications/ relaxations granted by the respondent/organization. The petitioners have also admitted that after participating in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor, the petitioners, although selected for Assistant Professor at AGP Rs.8000/-, have not been inducted as Associate Professor with AGP Rs.9500/- due to clarifications/ relaxations granted by the respondent/organization. In the entire petition the petitioners have no where averred as to what prevented them on the earliest occasion available from raising any objection regarding the alleged illegality committed by the respondents. The Apex Court, in the case of D. Sarojakumari (supra) while entertaining a similar case has opined as under:- "4. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that respondent No.1 having taken part in the selection process could not be permitted to challenge the same after she was unsuccessful in getting selected. The law is well settled that once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is estopped from challenging the process of selection. 5. In Dr. G. Sarna v. University of Lucknow and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585 the petitioner after appearing in the interview for the post of Professor and having not been selected pleaded that the experts were biased. This Court did not permit the petitioner to raise this issue and held as follows :- "15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to get into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee..." 6. In Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of J and K and Ors, (1995) 3 SCC 486 , the petitioner laid challenge to the manner and method of conducting viva-voce test after they had appeared in the same and were unsuccessful. This Court held as follows :- "9....Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. v. State of J and K and Ors, (1995) 3 SCC 486 , the petitioner laid challenge to the manner and method of conducting viva-voce test after they had appeared in the same and were unsuccessful. This Court held as follows :- "9....Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, 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 Selection Committee was not properly constituted...." 7. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 , this Court held as follows :- "23...Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition." 8. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v. Anil Jodhi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309 the petitioners took part in the process of selection made under the general Rules. Having appeared in the interview and not being successful they challenged the method of recruitment itself. They were not permitted to raise such an objection. This Court held as follows :- "24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents." 9. Same view has been taken in Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another v. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others, (2016) 1 SCC 454 . 10. The Kerala High Court did not note the above mentioned judgments and ignored the well settled position of law in rejecting the specific plea raised by the appellant herein that the appellant could not raise the issue that no direct recruitment should have been conducted once she had applied for and taken part in the selection process by direct recruitment. 11. As far as the present case is concerned an advertisement was issued by respondent No.6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent No.1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised." (emphasis supplied) Thus, it is amply clear from the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court that a person is estopped from raising any objection regarding the recruitment process in which he himself has participated without any objection at the initial stage. And, as already discussed above, in the case on hand also no objection was raised by the petitioner at the initial stage, in view of the same, his challenge to the recruitment process is stale and is not maintainable. As a result, IA No.4284/2019 is hereby allowed and the admission is declined. The petition is hereby dismissed at the threshold only." 11. In view of above analysis, we are in agreement with learned Single Judge that having participated in the entire selection without raising any objection as to the relaxation granted to the existing faculty members of NITs, the petitioners are estopped from questioning the procedure and the selection thereon. 12. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. No costs.