ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. This review petition has been filed by the review petitioner/writ petitioner-candidate seeking review/recall of order dated 21.02.2022 by which bunch of writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the review petitioner in the matter of selection to the post of District Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner argued that when the bunch was decided by this Court, which included the case of the review petitioner also, the issue raised by the review petitioner was not decided. It is argued that the only issue raised in the writ petition was that the review petitioner belongs to physically handicapped category and therefore in addition to the relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks in his capacity as reserved category (Scheduled Tribes), he ought to have been assessed on a further relaxed minimum qualifying marks at the level of 33%. 4. It is submitted that at the time of deciding all the writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the review petitioner, this issue was not dealt with in the common order. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the review petitioner belongs to physically handicapped category and the respondents were obliged under the law to provide for proper relaxation in the matter of assessment of merit under the scheme of The Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that it is true that the issue raised by the review petitioner/writ petitioner in the writ petition was whether the review petitioner is entitled to be assessed on the basis of relaxed criteria, that was suitably replied by submitting that the review petitioner having participated in the process of selection without challenge to the Rules and the advertisement, was not entitled to any relief on such grounds. He would further submit that the issue otherwise stands concluded by an order passed by this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Neha Sankhla vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13228/2019 decided on 06.09.2019), wherein, this Court has categorically held that a candidate cannot claim a direction that a person with disabilities ought to be granted the same benefit of relaxed eligibility standard of minimum 40% marks as in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidate, given that no other reserved category candidate has been provided such a benefit. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent would, however, submit that this was not argued during the course of hearing and, therefore, there was no occasion for this Court to deal with such an issue while deciding other common issues raised during the course of hearing. 7. The order passed by this Court does not deal with the issue, which has been raised by the review petitioner. We have, therefore, allowed the learned counsel for the review petitioner to make a submission on the issue. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is mainly based on claim for being assessed on a relaxed criteria on the basis of petitioner belonging to physically handicapped category. The petitioner’s claim is based on a notification of the State. 9. In the present case, what is not in dispute is that the selection to the post borne in the cadre of District Judge is governed by the rules known as Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). We have gone through the Rules and we find that there is no provision entitling a candidate belonging to physically handicapped category to get relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks. In the advertisement also, no such provision was made. If the review petitioner was aggrieved, it was open for him to challenge the validity of the Rules as also the advertisement on such a ground, but the review petitioner did not choose to challenge either the Rules or the criteria of selection as stated in the advertisement, but participated in the process of selection. It is only when the petitioner failed to secure minimum qualifying marks that he turns around to challenge his non-selection. It is only when the petitioner failed to secure minimum qualifying marks that he turns around to challenge his non-selection. It is worthwhile to mention that as the review petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribes category, he was otherwise entitled to be assessed on relaxed criteria of minimum qualifying marks for reserved category. While general category candidates were assessed on the minimum qualifying marks criteria of 45%, the review petitioner, in-fact, was assessed on minimum qualifying marks of 40%. 10. It is a well settled legal position that where a person participated in the process of selection without challenging the criteria and the Rules pertaining to selection, in the event of his being unsuccessful, he cannot be allowed to challenge the process of selection or the criteria of selection. In this regard, recent judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mustafa vs. Union of India and Others, (2022) 1 SCC 294 restated the settled legal position as below: “It is in this context, we have to examine whether the Appellants are estopped from challenging the recommendations made by the Empanelment Committee, given the fact that they had taken a calculated chance, and not protested till the selection panel was made public. In our opinion, the ratio in Madan Lal and Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, would apply in the present case as when a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted. This decision, no doubt, pertains to a case where the petitioner had appeared at an open interview, however, the ratio would apply to the present case as the Appellant too had taken a calculated chance in spite of the stakes, that too without protest and then has belatedly raised the plea of bias and prejudice only when he was not recommended. The judgment in Madanlal (supra) refers to an earlier decision of this Court in Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, wherein the petitioner who had appeared at an examination without protest was not granted any relief, as he had filed the petition when he could not succeed afterwards in the examination. This principle has been reiterated in Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar and Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi.” 11. This principle has been reiterated in Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar and Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi.” 11. Another recent judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 357 , held as under: “12. The Appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the Appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the Appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate. 13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar, this Court held that: (SCC p. 107, Para 18). “18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar vs. Rajiv Govil and Rashmi Mishra vs. M.P. Public Service Commission).” 14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borroah (2009) 3 SCC 227 , wherein it was held to be well settled that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful. 15. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations: (SCC p. 584, Para 16) “16. 15. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations: (SCC p. 584, Para 16) “16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. 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. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, Marripati Nagaraja vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Dhananjay Malik vs. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines. 16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The Appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible. 17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the Respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the Respondents were disentitled to seek relief Under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that: (SCC p. 318, Para 18) “18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.” 18. This Court held that: (SCC p. 318, Para 18) “18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.” 18. In Chandigarh Administration vs. Jasmine Kaur, it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, this Court held that: (SCC p. 500, Para 17) “17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the Appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the Appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the Appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted.” This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development Studies vs. K. Sivasubarmaniyan.” 12. Having considered as above, we are of the opinion that otherwise also the review petitioner was not entitled to get any relief. 13. Therefore, having heard learned counsel for the review petitioner on the issue, we do not find any merit in the claim of the review petitioner. 14. The review petition itself is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.