- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard ShriDeo Raj Singh,learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Shri R. C. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel repre senting the respondents No. 1 and 2.
(2.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the list of the candidates selected for appointment on the post of Class IV employees at a selection held in the Judgeship of Bijnor, a copy whereof is Annexure-2 to the petition, be quash ed. Further prayer of the petitioner is that a writ of mandamus be issued to the District Judge, Bijnor for holding separate written test and interview for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates. It appears that in the year 1990 a selection was held in the judge-ship of District Bijnor for the purpose of recruiting class IV employees wherein the petitioner, a member of scheduled caste, was a candidate. He appeared in the written test and was also interviewed. But ho failed to qualify he has approached to this Court to quash the selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection was vitiated for the following two reasons : (a) because the selection committee was not properly constituted and the procedure adopted by it was contrary to the guidelines I indicated in the orders issued by the Government ; and (b) because the two candidates, namely, the respondents No. 3 and 4, were wrongly selected inasmuch as they were not the resi dents of the area within the judgeship of District Bijnor.
(3.) THE first objection of the learned counsel that the selection com mittee was not properly constituted and the procedure adopted by it was contrary to the guidelines indicated in the or era issued by the Government sinks into insignificance in view of the fact that the petitioner participated in the selection without any objection either to the constitution of the selec tion committee or to the procedure adopted by it. Having participated in the selection without any objection and having taken chance for selection he is estopped from 'challenging the constitution of the selection committee and the procedure adopted by it. Apart from this, uncontroverted aver ments made in paragraphs 15, 16 and 19 of the counter-affidavit show that neither there was any defect in the Constitution of the selection committee or was the procedure adopted by it contrary to any guideline given in any Government Order. Otherwise also, the guidelines in the Government Orders are merely for guidance, having no statutory force. No violation of any statutory provision has either been pleaded or demonstrated before the Court. Thus, the first objection cannot be sustained: So far as the second objection against the selection of the respon dents No. 3 and 4 on the ground of their being residents of the area falling outside the judgeship of District Bijnor is concerned, nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court which disqualified them from being selected. Even otherwise also the objection cannot be upheld as the respon dents No. 3 and 4 were duly enrolled in the District Employment Exchange at Bijnor, as asserted in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, and not denied by the petitioner.;