JUDGMENT ;- G.NARENDAR, J. Heard Sri.Vamn Byreddy, learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Services-1 for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is the appellant and is before this order Court in this intra-Court Appeal, being aggrieved by the of the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single taken Judge taking note of the fact, that the appellant has deemed part in four stages of selection process and thereafter itself on it necessary to mount a challenge to the notification not tremulous ground of the concessional cut off mark with the being stipulated for sports persons, in compliance earlier notification dated 28.11.2022. 3. The facts are not in dispute. 4. The learned Single Judge has recorded his reasons & decision in paragraph no.9, as under;- “Having considered these facts, this Court has the noticed that the Writ Petitioner has participated in four stages of qualifying process without any demur. He got qualified in the preliminary examination without reference to any minimum qualifying mark which is specifically reserved for sports persons as per the G.O.Ms.No.74. The Writ Petitioner has not even to submitted any Representation to the Respondents state that the Notification suffers from non-prescription of lower qualifying mark for the persons seeking consideration under sports quota. He has only non approached this Court challenging the consideration of the benefit given to sports persons under G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012 only when he as was unable to secure the minimum qualifying mark prescribed under OC category in the Written Examination (the last stage). ” 5. It is not in dispute that the State under G.O.Ms.No.74 has drawn up a policy in order to set apart 2% of posts against “special quota” that is reserved for “sports persons”. The 2% recruitment is against all posts notified for recruitment. 6. It is the case of the appellant that the State ought to have stipulated lower cut-off mark, is demand which is raised at very belated Stage. If it was the case of the appellant that he is entitled for consideration of his case by way of stipulating concessional marks and extend such advantages as is available under G.O.Ms.No.74, the appropriate stage would have been at the very inception i.e., immediately after the notification came to be published. If it was the case of the appellant that he is entitled for consideration of his case by way of stipulating concessional marks and extend such advantages as is available under G.O.Ms.No.74, the appropriate stage would have been at the very inception i.e., immediately after the notification came to be published. the Having omitted to do so and having participated in the selection process and having failed, in our opinion of the law challenge raised by the appellant must fail in terms laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court and the various High Courts have consistently held that a candidate who goes to through the process of selection ought not to be permitted turn back and impugn the very process which he had submitted himself to. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would attempt to convince the Court by placing reliance on ruling 6b rendered in the case of Raj Kumar & Ors vs Shakti Raj Ors, (1997) AIR (SCW) 1959 (C.A.No.923 of 1997) and in particular he would place in reliance on the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court paragraph no. 16. 9. On bare reading, it is seen that the Apex Court the has been pleased to identify glaring illegalities in “17. It is well settled that the principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging the selection process after having failed in it as iterated by this Court in a plethora of judgments including Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 observing as follows: “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 appellant is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the appellant’s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The appellant 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 appellant clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. This conduct of the appellant clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. ”The underlying objective of this principle is to prevent candidates from trying another shot at consideration, and to avoid an impasse wherein every disgruntled candidate, having failed the selection, challenges it in the See also: Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC], Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P.[(2007) 11 SCC 522], Dhananjay Malik V. State of Uttaranchal [(2008) SCC 171] and K.A.Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [(2009) SCC 515] Page 11 hope of getting second chance. 18. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In situation where candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and same discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process.” 12. We are unable to appreciate as to how the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are applicable to the was to facts of the instant case. In fact, there the challenge the weightage given to the candidates i.e., the doctors who had worked in Government Hospitals and the ambit of the dispute before the Apex Court was with reference to the interpretation of phrase ‘work experience’ found in the notification. The Apex Court was not examining any illegality in the selection process. 13. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the said rule has nothing to do with the facts on hand and accordingly we do not find any reason warranting for further consideration of the Writ Appeal by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands Rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Writ Appeal, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.