Order : 1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.14694/2024 whereby the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the Public Notice dated 09.02.2024, the appellant submitted an application for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG, 2024). The appellant-petitioner in the writ petition challenged ‘Clause 5.e’ of the said notification with regard to reservation to the wards of Defence Personnel and Paramilitary Personnel. 3. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant-petitioner held as under:- “14. Upon considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, an assiduous scanning of records and judgments cited at Bar, this Court is of the following stance: 14.1 That the instant matter pertains to considering the petitioners’ candidature under 1% quota assigned to wards of Gallantry awardee Military and Para-Military personnel for admissions under NEET UG-2024 examination. 14.2 That the petitioner is a ward of Gallantry awardee Para-Military personnel. 14.3 That for NEET UG-2021, an information booklet was issued, whereby nine categories of reservation in pari materia form qua wards of Military and Para Military personnel were spelled out qua 1%reservation (Annexure-3). 14.4 Qua information bulletin pertaining to NEET UG-2024 following priority order for Defence personnel of Military and Para- military forces were spelled out, which is reproduced as under:- “As per letter no. 6(1)/2017/D (Res. II), dated 19.05.2017 and it’s subsequent amendments in Nov. 2017 and 21.05.2018 issued by Dept. of Ex- serviceman welfare, of Govt. of India and SOP letter No.370/Adm./MBBS/BDS/c, dated 01.07.2020 of Kendriya Sainik Kalyan Board, Ministry of Defense, Govt. of India, priority order (certificate proforma 1) for Defence personnel of Rajasthan origin, will be as follows: 1. Widows/Wards of Defence Personnel killed in action. 2. Wards of those Disabled in action and boarded out from service. 3. Widows/Wards of those Defence personnel who died while in service with death attributable to military service. 4. Wards of those Disabled in service and boarded out with disability attributable to military service. 5. Wards of ex- service men and serving personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Award. 6. Wards of ex-service men. 7. 3. Widows/Wards of those Defence personnel who died while in service with death attributable to military service. 4. Wards of those Disabled in service and boarded out with disability attributable to military service. 5. Wards of ex- service men and serving personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Award. 6. Wards of ex-service men. 7. Wives of (i) defence personnel killed in action and boarded out from services (ii) defence personnel disabled in service and boarded out with disability attributable to military services (iii) ex- servicemen and serving personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Award 8. Wards of serving personnel 9. Wives of serving personnel As per the letter no.F25/SKV/2022/13423-30 dated 13.10.2022 of Sainik Kalyan Vibhag, Govt. of Rajasthan, the para-military seat is admissible for only one member of the family once in life time. According to the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs), only wards of Para- military personnel from serial 1 to 3 below are eligible for the scheme. Priority order (certificate proforma 2) for Para- military personnel of Rajasthan origin, will be as follows: 1. Wards/Widows/Wives of those paramilitary personnel killed in action. 2. Wards/Widows/Wives of those Para-military personnel permanently disabled in action and boarded out from service. 3. Wards of All serving and retired personnel.” 14.5 That the State Counseling Board have to act upon the directions of competent authority under CISF/CAPF or Para- Military forces and as per advisory letter dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure- AA/2), wherein only three categories of priority as per given sequence were directed to be contained in the information booklet qua wards of Para-Military personnel, which is reproduced as below:- “(i) Priority-I : Wards/Widows of those Killed in Action (i.e. Those who are eligible for LPA- Liberalized Pensionary Awards) (ii) Priority- II : Wards/Widows/wives of personnel permanently disabled in action and boarded out from service. (iii) Priority-III : Wards of all serving and retired personnel.” 14.6 That the aforestated categories are not supposed to be distributed but directed to be maintained in its letter and spirit vide letter dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure AA/3), whereby the Office of Deputy Inspector General has specified that the candidature of the present petitioner cannot be considered above and other than the priorities enlisted under category I-III. 14.7 That it is contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents that they are acting as per the prescribed policy and the appropriate sequence of priority, specifying concerned wards of Military and Para-Military personnel, wherein no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Additionally, it is contended that they have no wisdom or discretion to interfere in the same. 14.8 Moreover, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.3 has made a categoric contention, wherein the relevant portion is reproduced as under:- “(vi) That it is also respectfully submitted that all recipients of gallantry medals including those from Para-military/Police Forces are eligible to get the benefit of reservation under intended category equally without any discrimination on the basis of wards of Military personnel and Para-military personnel.” 15. Upon a holistic reading and consideration of the aforementioned observations, it is noted that qua wards of Para- military personnel three categories of priority are formulated, wherein qua the wards of Gallantry awardee Para-military personnel, no separate category is spelled out. Furthermore, upon perusal of the available records, it is deduced that no prima facie malafide is caused to the petitioner, other than the argument that qua wards of Military personnel, 9 clauses of priority list are maintained inclusive of the specific clause regarding wards of Gallantry awardee Military personnel. 16. Howsoever, upon considering the fact that Military and Para- military forces are on different footing and policy makers have maintained their view and application of mind in its letter and spirit, this Court under the scope of judicial review cannot interfere and specifically spell out non- consideration of wards of Gallantry awardee of Para-Military personnel as a special clause of reservation over and above Priority list I-III and for the aforestated reasons, no merit is made out in favour of the petitioner as per the present petition. Further, while placing reliance upon the dictum enunciated in the case of Asha (Supra), it can be opined that the merit should be the sole criteria in the professional courses like medical and the same should not be disturbed.” 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that in the year 2021, priority was given by the respondents to the wards of paramilitary personnel (Gallantry Awardee) for the purpose of admission. However, after that in the years 2022, 2023 and 2024, no such priority was given. Counsel for the appellant submits that in the year 2021, priority was given by the respondents to the wards of paramilitary personnel (Gallantry Awardee) for the purpose of admission. However, after that in the years 2022, 2023 and 2024, no such priority was given. Counsel submits that it is case of discrimination, and therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal. 5. Counsel for the respondents opposed the present appeal and submitted that the appellant failed to challenge the said notification at the initial stage and same has been challenged by the appellant-petitioner after participating in the same. Counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Hon’ble Suprme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 357 in paras No.13 to 18 has held as under:- “13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002), 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 MANU/SC/7926/2007 :(2007) 3 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 Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission). 14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borroah where it was held to be well settled that 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 v. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations:(SCCp.584, para 16) “16. 15. In Manish Kumar ShahI v. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations:(SCCp.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 v. State of J &K, Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines. 16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. 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 v. 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, para18) “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 Admn. This Court held that (SCC P.318, para18) “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 Admn. v. 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 v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, this Court held that:(SCC P.500, para17) “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 V. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam.” 8. This appeal filed on behalf of the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the appellant has challenged the scheme of examination/admission after participating in the said process, in our considered view, the appellant is estopped to challenge the same in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the matter of Ashok Kumar (supra);secondly, the process of admission in subject medical course has already been over, in our considered view, at this stage, the appellant is not entitled for the relief which has been claimed by him in the writ petition; thirdly, we are in complete agreement with the findings given by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. 9. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. 10. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.