Order : (SUDESH BANSAL, J.) 1. Though, the writ petition has been listed on the second stay application, however, with the consent of counsel for both parties, instant writ petition has been heard finally on merits. 2. Instant writ petition has been filed jointly by six petitioners on 08.04.2024 raising a grievance for not including the other category of physically disabled person except the category of Hard of Hearing (HH), to extend the horizontal reservation against 57 vacancies of Technical Helper-III advertised by the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited dated 04.02.2022. 3. At the outset, it is noteworthy that as per Para No. 7 of the writ petition, it is an admitted case of petitioners that selection process for the post of Technical Helper-III pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.02.2022 has completed on 28.02.2023 and the appointment to the selected candidates have also been accorded by the JVVNL. Thereafter, petitioner filed instant writ petition on 08.04.2024 i.e. after expiry of more than a year. 4. During the course of arguments, counsel for petitioners admits that the benefit of reservation for candidates of PWBD has been confined by the respondent to only Hard of Hearing disabled persons and the petitioners, who suffers from Locomotor Disability have been deprived, however, it has emerged as an undisputed fact that petitioners applied and participated in the present recruitment process showing themselves to be suffering from the disability of Hard of Hearing and by concealing their actual disability of Locomotor and thereby obtained an opportunity to appear in the written examination. Nevertheless, thereafter, when during their medical examination and document verification, true category of disability of petitioners was found different, then the category of Hard of Hearing, they were not selected. Then after remaining unsuccessful in the selection process and after completion of selection process, pursuant to advertisement dated 04.02.2022, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 5. It appears that apart from the aforesaid grievance, petitioners have also raised other issues that the vacancies for 3% disabled persons from the year 2001-2002 to 2018-19 and 4% vacancies from the year 2019-20 to 2020-21 were not determined and not shown as backlog in the advertisement dated 04.02.2022. Further the appointment against few of the 57 posts, which were kept reserved for Hard of Hearing candidates only, have been given to the candidates belonging to General category as well, hence, their appointment be cancelled. 6. Further the appointment against few of the 57 posts, which were kept reserved for Hard of Hearing candidates only, have been given to the candidates belonging to General category as well, hence, their appointment be cancelled. 6. As far as first issue of confining the reservation to HH category persons only is concerned, this Court finds that in the advertisement dated 04.02.2022, it was specifically indicated that the horizontal reservation to physically disabled person is available only to PWBD-HH. This fact was highlighted by showing asterisk (*) mark in below the table of vacancies and specific Clause No.2 (x) of the advertisement was inserted, which reads as under:- “(x) Persons with Benchmark Disabilities of ‘Hard of Hearing’ (HH) only are eligible for reservation. A person applying as Persons with Benchmark Disabilities must be issued a certificate of disability of 40% or more by the Medical Board.” (underline is mine) 7. Now after completion of selection process and grant of appointment, petitioners have raised the issue of not granting benefit of PH reservation to other categories and simultaneously, challenge has been made to the record of Notes of Meeting dealing with the present recruitment on the post of Technical Helper-III under the Technical Workmen Service Regulations, 1975. The Minutes have been placed on record with the writ petition as Annexure-11. A perusal of Minutes goes to show that it has specifically been decided by the Committee that considering the nature of employment of Technical Helper-III and involvement of hazards of high voltage current and their mobility in the field, the reservation has been provided only to the category “b” suffering from “Hard of Hearing”. Relevant portion of Minutes are being quoted for ready reference:- D. Technical Workmen Service Regulation, 1975 Technical Helper-III / Helper-II /Plant Attendant- III/ Technician-III/Hydel Operator-III/ Operator-III They assist employees and senior workers in all technical works in the field related with installation, testing and operation & maintenance of various activities/systems for Generation, Transmission & Distribution of electricity. It involves hazards of high voltage current and their mobility should be adequate enough to perform assigned task in the field. Reservation may be allowed to persons suffering with disability of Hard of hearing (HH) specified under category (b) with following disabilities:- (i) Category (b) – Hard of Hearing. Persons with disability specified under categories (a), (c), (d) & (e) may not be allowed reservation for this post. Reservation may be allowed to persons suffering with disability of Hard of hearing (HH) specified under category (b) with following disabilities:- (i) Category (b) – Hard of Hearing. Persons with disability specified under categories (a), (c), (d) & (e) may not be allowed reservation for this post. Thus, vacancies of these categories may also be filled by persons with disabilities which have been found suitable for appointment under categories (b) 8. This is an undisputed fact that petitioners do not suffer from the disability of Hard of Hearing, yet before applying and participating in the recruitment process, petitioners did not raise the issue of non-grant of reservation in the PH category to other kind of disability like Locomotor etc. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the grievance of petitioners was, for not including the disability of Locomotor and other disabilities in the PH category and confining the reservation against 57 notified posts for PH category, only to persons suffering from the disability of Hard of Hearing, it was open for them to challenge the criteria of prescribing reservation as also the record of Note of Meeting, prior to participation in the present recruitment process. It has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2017) 7 SCC 357] that after participation in the selection process, and being failure to get selection, candidate is estopped to question the criteria of selection. It would be apropos to reproduce para 12 of the judgment as hereunder: “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.” 10. In the present case, it is quite surprising that petitioners have knowingly participated in the present recruitment process, that too by concealing their true nature of disability of Locomotor and falsely showing themselves to be suffering from disability of Hard of Hearing, however, when they could not find selection, then only, after completion of process have raised this issue after one year, which is misplaced and not permissible in law. 11. 11. As far as non-determination of vacancies for PH category 3% from the year 2001-2002 to 2018-19 and 4% vacancies from the year 2019-20 to 2020-21 is concerned, such prayer too is not acceptable in the backdrop of facts that petitioners have not approached before the Court with clean hands and at appropriate stage before initiation of selection process, and have filed the instant writ petition after participation in the recruitment process and completion of recruitment process. 12. As far as the issue in respect of grant of appointment to the candidates of General category against few of the reserved posts for Hard of Hearing candidates is concerned, such ground has not been substantiated by detailing out any particulars nor any of the selected candidate of General category, against the reserve post, has been impleaded as party herein in the writ petition, hence, the prayer for cancellation of their appointment is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 13. For the discussion and reasons, referred in foregoing paras, the writ petition is misconceived and has been filed by misusing the process of law. Further petitioners participated in the recruitment process, concealing their true nature of disability of Locomotor and showing themselves to be suffering from disability of Hard of Hearing and then invoked writ jurisdiction of High Court after obtaining legal opinion, therefore, conduct of petitioners is not bonafide, hence, each petitioner is saddled with exemplary cost which is quantified to Rs.1,000/- only, to be deposited by petitioners with the Litigants Welfare Fund through Banker’s Cheque/ Demand Draft in the name of Registrar General, LWFA, Rajasthan High Court. 14. In view of above, the writ petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. 15. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.