ORDER : Goutam Bhaduri, J. Heard. 1. Case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner, who was working as head constable, appeared in an examination for promotion which held in the erstwhile State of MP in between 15/04/1999 to 17/04/1999. The result of the promotion were declared on 18/04/1999 and the petitioner was qualified. However, subsequently the IG Bastar on 6/11/1999 cancelled the result of examination and ordered for re-examination on various count and re-examination dates were fixed on 20/11/1999 and 21/11/1999 but significantly the higher ups of the IG i.e. DGP on 23/02/2000 cancelled the order of re-examination ordered by the IG and directed to proceed with the result of the earlier examination which was conducted on 15/04/1999 and 17/04/1999. 2. The petitioner contends that the IG Dantewada ignored the direction of the DGP on 4/10/2000 and proceeded to conduct third examination with a date fixed on 14/10/2000 and 15/10/2000. Likewise, the IG Bastar too on 10/10/2000 ignored the direction of DGP to join his boys conducted the third examination on 14/10/2000 and 15/10/2000. However, the letter was issued by the office of SP that the promotion examination which was going to be completed on 21/10/2000 and 22/10/2000 subsequently was stayed by the administrative order. The present petitioner on 14/03/2001 moved a representation against the order of the re-examination passed by the IG Bastar and the said representation was further repeated on 3/04/2001 and 1/04/2001. Said representation was not positively considered and IG Bastar on 27/03/2001 again notified for conducting the examination for promotion in the last week of April and first week of May. SP subsequently notified for conducting the examination for promotion on 26/04/2001 and 27/04/2001 but the DGP again cancelled the order of the IG. In the meanwhile, being aggrieved by such action, a writ petition was filed wherein the High Court ordered for maintaining status quo on 11/05/2001 in respect of the examination which was scheduled on 26/04/2001 and 27/04/2001 and by an interim order dated 23/09/2003 eight posts were directed to be kept vacant in such WP No.828/2001. Eventually the WP No.828/2001 was decided on 13/03/2013 wherein the High Court ordered the DGP to pass appropriate direction. The said order was not subject of any challenge. Thereby the interim order which was passed to keep eight posts vacant merged into it without any further right in favour of petitioner. Eventually the WP No.828/2001 was decided on 13/03/2013 wherein the High Court ordered the DGP to pass appropriate direction. The said order was not subject of any challenge. Thereby the interim order which was passed to keep eight posts vacant merged into it without any further right in favour of petitioner. Perusal of the said order of 13th March, 2013 do not show that the interim order was made absolute meaning thereby eight posts which were kept vacant which includes the petitioner was one of that merged into the order of representation. Subsequently, on 10/07/2014 fresh examination was directed by Annexure P-4 by the IG. The petitioner appeared in such examination but could not qualify the bench mark and having being so, the petitioner submitted a representation on 14/07/2014 and another representation on 21/08/2015 which eventually was dismissed on 15/12/2015 by Annexure P-1. 3. Submission is made by the counsel that initially eight posts were kept vacant in an earlier round of litigation, therefore the petitioner who was eventually not promoted through out his entire career should be given the consequential benefit and as on date the petitioner stands retired. The said submission of the petitioner cannot be favourably considered for the reason initially when eight posts were kept vacant in an earlier round of litigation in WP No.828/2001 and it eventually got decided on 13/03/2013, the High Court only observed that if the petitioner was entitled, he should be considered for promotion but when the petitioner already appeared in the examination which was subsequently conducted at the direction of the IG by Annexure P-4 and having not succeeded, the said qualification criteria looses its significance and the right which was initially protected came to an end with the passage of time. Since the other candidates have been promoted, it is not clear before this Court as to whether eight posts still lying vacant or not. The fact remains the petitioner having appeared in the subsequent examination at the direction of the IG on 10/07/2014 and having not succeeded, he cannot again question the same on the ground of estoppel. 4. The Supreme Court in the matter of Anupal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department & ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 173 at para 57, 58 & 59 of the judgment has observed as under:- “57. 4. The Supreme Court in the matter of Anupal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department & ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 173 at para 57, 58 & 59 of the judgment has observed as under:- “57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 395 , it was held as under: (SCC p. 426, para 73) “73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper……..”. 58. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 , it was held as under: (SCC p. 107, para 19) “19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127 It was further observed: (SCC p. 149, para 34) “34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, 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 there was some lacuna in the process.” 59. Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh (2008) 4 SCC 619 wherein, it was held as under: (SCC pp.645-46, para 59) “59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ……The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise.” 5. Applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, at this stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly the petition is dismissed.