JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have challenged Advertisement Notice dated 18.08.2005 issued by respondent No. 1, whereby applications were invited for appointment to the post of System Analyst in the department of Computer Sciences, University of Jammu. A further direction has been sought upon the respondents to fill up the post of System Analyst in the department of Computer Sciences by allocating 50% quota for in-service candidates of non-teaching side belonging to Technical Staff. Challenge has also been thrown to the appointment of respondent No. 5 as System Analyst made in terms of letter dated 31.08.2005 issued by respondent No. 1. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is working as Senior Technical Assistant in the department of Computer Sciences, University of Jammu, whereas petitioner No. 2 is working as Junior Technical Assistant in the same department. It has been pleaded that there are three classes of employees in the Jammu University, namely, teaching Staff, non-teaching staff and works department. It has been submitted that the posts of System Analyst, Senior Technical Assistant and Junior Technical Assistant are part of the non-teaching staff and these posts like other posts of the University of Jammu are governed and regulated by the guidelines prescribed by the University Grants Commission. It has been further submitted that vide Resolution No. 19 dated 24.07.1986, respondent No. 2 authorised the approval of implementation of the pay scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission for the non-teaching employees. Accordingly, after adaption of the pay scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission, the same were also allowed to the non-teaching staff, including Senior Technical Assistants and Junior Technical Assistants. It was, however, provided in the conditions mentioned in Resolution dated 24.07.1986 that the exercise is to be undertaken by the respondent-University for grant of promotion by fixation of quota to the extent of 50% to the in-service candidates on the basis of the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission. 3. According to the petitioners, the respondent-University did not adhere to the reservation of quota of 50% to the non-teaching staff immediately. However, vide Notification No. 4 of 1998 dated 04.04,1998, quota to the extent of 50% relating to the promotion to the next higher post was extended to the ministerial and secretarial staff. The said benefit, however, was not extended to the technical staff. However, vide Notification No. 4 of 1998 dated 04.04,1998, quota to the extent of 50% relating to the promotion to the next higher post was extended to the ministerial and secretarial staff. The said benefit, however, was not extended to the technical staff. The petitioners are stated to have filed their representations before the Grievance Cell in this regard and sought their promotion by reservation of 50% of quota of the next higher posts so as to seek the same benefit to them as was made available to the secretarial staff, ministerial staff and the staff of central libraries. 4. According to the petitioners, the official respondents without redressing the grievance of the petitioners issued the impugned Advertisement Notice dated 18.08.2005 for filling up several posts including the post of System Analyst in the department of Computer Sciences, without providing for any reservation to the extent of 50% for in-service candidates. It has been contended that the post of System Analyst was required to be filled up from amongst the in-service candidates in view of the mandate of University Grants Commission, which provided for reservation of 50% posts to the in-service candidates. 5. The petitioners, however, are stated to have applied for the advertised post of System Analyst alongwith other candidates including respondent No. 5 and they have also participated in the selection process by attending the interview that was held on 22.08.2005. It seems that the petitioners did not find themselves selected and instead respondent No. 5 was appointed as System Analyst in terms of impugned letter dated 31.08.2005 issued by respondent No. 1. 6. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid action of the respondents on the grounds that it was incumbent upon the respondents to fill up 50% of the posts of System Analysts from amongst the in-service candidates by way of promotion, having regard to the mandate of guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, which have been duly approved by the respondent-University. It has been further contended that while the respondent-University has extended the benefit of earmarking 50% posts for in-service candidates in case of non-teaching staff belonging to Central Libraries, Ministerial Staff and Secretarial Staff but the said benefit has not been extended to the technical staff, thereby violating their right to equality guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It has also been contended that the benefit of reservation of 50% quota for technical staff has been extended by the Jawaharlal University, New Delhi as also by the University of Delhi but the same is being denied to the technical staff of the respondent-University, thereby subjecting them to invidious discrimination. The petitioners have challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 as System Analyst on the ground that the same has been made in violation of the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission and that the said respondent is less qualified than the petitioners. 7. It seems that initially on 29.08.2005, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition on 29.08.2005 challenging therein only the Advertisement Notice dated 18.08.2005 and sought a direction upon the respondents to fill up the post of System Analyst by allocating 50% quota for the in-service candidates. A further direction was sought in the writ petition that the respondents be prohibited from making appointment to the post of System Analyst pursuant to the Advertisement Notice. However, the said writ petition came to be amended by the petitioners once respondent No. 5 was appointed as System Analyst in terms of impugned letter dated 31.08.2005. 8. The respondent-University contested the writ petition by filing reply thereto. It its reply the respondent-University has submitted that a scheme for Reorganization cum-Caderisation of the technical staff of the Computer Science department was promulgated by the University vide Notification dated 29.06.1994 so as to provide promotional avenues to the said staff. As per this scheme, a member of the technical staff is eligible to be considered for promotion to the higher scale after having put in 10 years satisfactory service and likewise the said member of the staff is eligible to be considered for promotion to the selection scale post, if has put in total 18 years of service. According to the official respondents, the scheme is aimed at career advancement of the technical staff and that the petitioners are covered under the said scheme. Thus, according to the respondent-University, the petitioners have a channel of promotion available to them and as such, they cannot have any grievance on that count. It has been further submitted that the petitioners are labouring under misconception that 50% quota was required to be earmarked for in-service technical staff for appointment to the post of System Analyst. 9. Thus, according to the respondent-University, the petitioners have a channel of promotion available to them and as such, they cannot have any grievance on that count. It has been further submitted that the petitioners are labouring under misconception that 50% quota was required to be earmarked for in-service technical staff for appointment to the post of System Analyst. 9. The official respondents have submitted that petitioner No. 1 was placed in the selection scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/- which is the same scale of pay as is available to the post of System Analyst. Therefore, there is no question of petitioner No. 1 claiming promotion to the post of System Analyst. Regarding petitioner No. 2, it has been submitted that he is holding a much lower post in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- and as such, he cannot seek promotion to a post, which is two steps higher in pay scale. 10. The official respondents have contended that the petitioners have participated in the selection process to the post of System Analyst pursuant to the impugned Advertisement Notice and after having failed to make the grade, they cannot turn around and challenge the Advertisement Notice and the selection process. 11. Regarding appointment of respondent No. 5, it has been submitted that he was more qualified and was more suitable for the post of System Analyst than the petitioners and for this reason only he was selected. It has been further contended that the petitioners cannot have a say in the matters relating to prescribing qualification for a particular post and that the qualification for the post of System Analyst was laid down keeping in view the work profile of the said post. 12. After filing of the reply by the respondents, the petitioner filed rejoinder, sur-rejoinder and supplementary affidavit. In their rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have again reiterated that they are more qualified and experienced than respondent No. 5. It has been further submitted that the post of System Analyst, though carrying the same pay scale as that of selection scale of Senior Technical Assistant, yet the post of System Analyst is higher in status. In their rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have again reiterated that they are more qualified and experienced than respondent No. 5. It has been further submitted that the post of System Analyst, though carrying the same pay scale as that of selection scale of Senior Technical Assistant, yet the post of System Analyst is higher in status. It has also been submitted that even if it is assumed that there is only one post of System Analyst available, still then it was incumbent upon the official respondents to divert the said post to the in-service candidates so as to take care of requirement of earmarking 50% quota to the in-service candidates. 13. In the sur-rejoinder, the petitioners have submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have considered grant of benefit of 50% internal promotion to the in-service Assistant Programmers, Computer Operators and Technical Assistant (Computers). Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 came to be promoted to the post of Programmer in terms of order dated 05.03.2014. 14. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioners have submitted that promotion of petitioner No. 1 as Programmer was made in his own pay and grade and as per the career advancement scheme, petitioner No. 1 has become entitled to third step on 06.09.2015 after completion of 27 years of service in the University. However, according to petitioner No. 1, he is entitled to the grade of Rs. 15,600-Rs. 39,100/- with grade pay of Rs. 6600/- and both the petitioners are entitled to promotion retrospectively from the date respondent No. 5 was appointed as a System Analyst. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 16. The first grievance of the petitioners is that in terms of the guidelines of the University Grants Commission, that have been adopted by the Jammu University, 50% posts in higher grade in technical cadre are to be earmarked for in-service candidates for filling up of the same by way of promotion. According to the petitioners, this has not been done by the respondent-University and instead they have issued impugned Advertisement Notice, whereby applications were invited inter alia for the post of System Analyst, which is a post next higher in grade to the post of Senior Technical Assistant that was being held by petitioner No. 1 at the time of filing of the writ petition. 17. 17. There is no denial of the fact that the respondent-Jammu University has adopted the pay scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff. The petitioners admittedly belong to the category of non-teaching staff, therefore they are entitled to the pay scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. However, it is not their case that they have been denied the pay scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. According to the petitioners alongwith the pay scales, the respondent-University was required to adopt the guidelines regarding the promotion of non-teaching staff that was prescribed by the University Grants Commission but the same has not been done in respect of the technical staff, whereas in respect of other non-teaching staff like Secretariat Staff, Ministerial Staff and the staff of Central Libraries, the guidelines relating to the promotion for in-service candidates have been adopted. As per these guidelines, quota to the extent of 50% in higher posts, have to be earmarked for the in-service candidates. 18. In the instant case, if we have a look at the documents on record that have been placed on record by the parties alongwith their pleadings, University Council vide Resolution No. 6 passed in its meeting dated 21.06.2004, approved creation of one post of System Analyst in the pay Scale of Rs. 8000-13500 in the Department of Computer Sciences for managing the Website facilities for Internet and University Campus Network infrastructure. It is not in dispute that only one post of System Analyst was created by the respondent-University. In these circumstances, even if we assume that the respondent-University was obliged to earmark 50% of the posts in higher grade in technical wing of the Computer Sciences department, it was impossible to do so for the respondent-University. Therefore, the action of the official respondents to go for direct recruitment in respect of post of System Analyst, cannot be called in question. 19. There is yet another reason which disentitles the petitioners from challenging the impugned Advertisement Notice to the extent of inviting applications for the post of System Analyst. The petitioners have admittedly responded to the Advertisement Notice, participated in the selection process and attended the interview on 22.08.2005. 19. There is yet another reason which disentitles the petitioners from challenging the impugned Advertisement Notice to the extent of inviting applications for the post of System Analyst. The petitioners have admittedly responded to the Advertisement Notice, participated in the selection process and attended the interview on 22.08.2005. After sensing that they may not succeed in getting selected, they filed the writ petition before this Court challenging the Advertisement Notice on 29.08.2005, which is only two days before the official respondents issued appointment letter in favour of respondent No. 5. The question arises whether the petitioners after having participated in the selection process without any demur can turn around and challenge the Advertisement Notice, pursuant to which the selection process was undertaken. The law in this regard is well settled that a candidate who wilfully participates in the selection process waives his right to challenge the said process and, as such, he is estopped from doing so. 20. The Supreme Court in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 , has held that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently. 21. Again in the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 , the Supreme Court has held that on the principle of waiver and estoppel, challenge to an advertisement notice inviting applications for appointment to a post cannot be entertained at the instance of the candidates, who fail to clear the written test. It was further held that by having taken part in the selection process with full knowledge, the candidates had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the selection authority for making the selection. 22. In Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, ( 2017 4 SCC 357 , the Supreme Court has held that that the candidates, who challenged the selection process having participated in the selection process without objection and subsequently found to be not successful, are precluded from calling in question the process of selection. The Supreme Court while holding so, has observed as under: "13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. The Supreme Court while holding so, has observed as under: "13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. 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 v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 , this Court held that: "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 also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724 )". 23. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi and ors. vs. The State of J&K and ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC)253 has, while dealing with a similar issue, observed as under: “13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.” 24. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.” 24. From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it is clear that once a candidate participates in the selection process, he is estopped from challenging the Advertisement Notice and the selection process. Applying this position of law to the present case, the petitioners have admittedly participated in the selection process for the post of System Analyst that was set into motion pursuant to the impugned advertisement notice, as such, they cannot challenge the said advertisement notice by claiming that the post was required to be earmarked for in-service candidates. 25. That takes us to the contention of the petitioners that they were possessing superior qualification to that of respondent No. 5, the selected candidate, inasmuch as they were having more experience than respondent No. 5. In this regard, it to be noted that as per the prescribed qualification mentioned in the impugned advertisement notice, a candidate for applying for the post of System Analyst was required to possess the following qualification: “MCA/BE (Computers) or MSc (Electronics) /BE(Electronics) with at least one year diploma in Computers and at least three years experience, two years in computer networks and one year in Managing internet at a recognized organisation/institution. (The minimum requirement of 55% of marks at Master’s level shall not be insisted upon in respect of senior Teachers/Administrative Officers who are already serving in the University System. However, the minimum requirement in their case shall be at least 50% marks at Master’s level)” 26. It is not the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 5 was not possessing the aforesaid qualification. The petitioners might have been possessing more experience than respondent No. 5 but the eligibility requirement was that a candidate must have three years’ experience, which respondent No. 5 was possessing. It is not the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 5 was not possessing the aforesaid qualification. The petitioners might have been possessing more experience than respondent No. 5 but the eligibility requirement was that a candidate must have three years’ experience, which respondent No. 5 was possessing. Whether additional qualification in a different discipline or additional experience should have been given more weightage for the purpose of selection of a candidate, is a matter, that was within the jurisdiction and competence of the employer and this Court cannot substitute its own view to that of the expert body, nor this Court would prescribe qualification for a particular post. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard, is without any substance. 27. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that though petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Programmer, yet the same was done in his own pay and grade and further that by the time he was promoted in the said grade, he had already reached the minimum pay scale prescribed for the promotional post and therefore, petitioner No. 1 was entitled to grant of an additional increment in terms of Article 77B of the J&K Civil Services Regulations. 28. In this regard, if we have a look at the documents placed on record by the petitioners, the same would show that though petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Programmer in his own pay and grade in terms of order dated 12.11.2015 yet vide order dated 26.08.2016, the said promotion of petitioner No. 1 was regularized with effect from 12.11.2015 itself. Therefore, the grievance of petitioner No. 1 in this regard is without any substance. So far as the contention of the petitioners that they were entitled to promotion to higher posts from the date when respondent No. 5 was appointed as System Analyst is concerned, the same is also without any substance. This is so because their contention that 50% posts of System Analyst deserved to be reserved for in-service employees stands repelled hereinbefore. 29. That takes us to the grievance of petitioner No. 1 that he has not been given the benefit of additional increment. It appears from the record placed on record by the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 had made a representation in this regard before the respondent-University. 29. That takes us to the grievance of petitioner No. 1 that he has not been given the benefit of additional increment. It appears from the record placed on record by the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 had made a representation in this regard before the respondent-University. However, the same came to be rejected by the respondent-University in terms of communication dated 10.01.2017 on the ground that the request of petitioner No. 1 is not covered under rules. 30. Petitioner No. 1 has not challenged the aforesaid communication of rejection issued by the respondent-University and has instead brought all these subsequent developments to the notice of this Court by way of sur-rejoinder and supplementary affidavit. Neither in the main writ petition nor in the amended writ petition, there is any prayer for quashment of letter dated 10.01.2017. Even the facts leading to issuance of the said communication and the grounds of challenge in respect of the same have not been pleaded in the amended writ petition. The question arises as to whether in these circumstances, the oral submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners can be considered. 31. A party can bring additional pleadings into a writ petition only through the process of amendment and not by any other means. Only when the pleadings are specifically incorporated in the petition, the adverse party will have a chance to rebut or admit those pleadings, whereafter the Court can frame an appropriate opinion on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. In absence of amendment to the main writ petition so as to incorporate the facts and grounds of challenge to the subsequent actions of the respondents, there was no chance for the respondents to meet the same, as such, it is not open to this Court to grant any relief to the petitioners in respect of a cause of action that has not been pleaded in the main writ petition. 32. The law of the pleadings does not go missing in writ proceedings. A rejoinder or sur-rejoinder is meant to answer or rebut only those facts/documents that may be brought on record by a respondent in his reply/counter affidavit. A writ petitioner cannot lay a challenge to the actions/omissions that have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition by filing rejoinder and sur-rejoinder. A rejoinder or sur-rejoinder is meant to answer or rebut only those facts/documents that may be brought on record by a respondent in his reply/counter affidavit. A writ petitioner cannot lay a challenge to the actions/omissions that have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition by filing rejoinder and sur-rejoinder. The only course known to law for challenging such subsequent actions/omissions is by way of amendment to the writ petition. Petitioner No. 1 has not undertaken amendment to the writ petition by incorporating grounds of challenge in respect of subsequent actions of the respondents and by making a prayer for quashing of these actions by amending the writ petition. Therefore, this Court cannot come to the rescue of petitioner No. 1 in this regard 33. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.