Are fence-sitters who let a selection process conclude entitled to file a writ petition afterwards?

No. Courts have reiterated that fence-sitters are not entitled to maintain writ petitions after completion of the process of selection and after issuance of appointment orders, as entertaining such petitions would open a Pandora's box for other similarly placed unsuccessful candidates.

The Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 — s.26 — s.27 — Recruitment selection — Delay and laches — Fence-sitter doctrine — The Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 — s.26 — Challenge to selection list on reservation grounds — belated writ barred — Held: A candidate who participates in a selection process and allows it to conclude cannot, after issuance of appointment orders, challenge the selection list as illegal on the ground that reservation for women and PSTM candidates was treated as vertical reservation contrary to the notification. (¶6) Delay and laches — writ filed three years after notification and one year after appointments — acquiescence — Held further: A writ petition instituted about three years from the date of notification and one year from the date of appointment of selected candidates, and only after a subsequent Division Bench judgment in an unrelated batch, is barred by delay and laches amounting to acquiescence. (¶6) Recruitment process — timing of challenge — illegality in notification must be raised before completion of selection — Held further: An aggrieved person must challenge an illegality in a recruitment notification before completion of the process of selection, or immediately upon coming to know of it after publication of the selected list, and cannot wait until after appointment orders are issued. (¶7) Fence-sitters — no writ after completion of selection and appointment — Pandora's box — Held further: Fence-sitters who allow the selection process to conclude and appointments to be made are not entitled to maintain a writ petition thereafter, since entertaining such a challenge would open a Pandora's box for other similarly placed unsuccessful candidates; the writ appeal and writ petition are dismissed. (¶8, 9)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of 3.S.Selvaraj 4.M.Govindarajulu 5.S.Girija 6.N.Subramani 7.A.Chandralega 8.Y.Devendiran v. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government Human Resources Development Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India