The court established the principle that candidates cannot challenge the rules of a selection process after participating in it, and emphasized the mandatory nature of the walking test requirement.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. The sole petitioner, Karanti Goyal, filed this present petition challenging the order dated January 13, 2021 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application being O.A. 1078/2015, whereby, the Tribunal has dismissed the O. A, as being without merit.

2. The Original Application was filed by two applicants including the petitioner herein. The petitioner, a physically disabled candidate, had taken part in the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2014. He appeared in the Preliminary and Main Examination and was selected for Indian Forest Service (IFoS). The Recruitment Rules for IFoS, stipulate a walking test of 25 kilometers of distance to be covered in four hours by male candidates and 14 kilometers in four hours by female candidates. The petitioner appeared for the walking test and was not able to cover the distance within the stipulated time. He was given another opportunity, as provided for under the Rules, but he was not successful and as such was not included in the list of selected candidates.

3. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that, wherever any requirement is stipulated with reference to time, the relevant rules provide for compensatory/extra time for candidates with physical disability, but in the case of the petitioner, such a facility was not extended. It was also the case of the petitioner that, the requirement stipulated by the respondents with regard to the walking test is contrary to the guidelines framed by the Ministry of Social Justice.

4. The case of the respondents was that the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the condition, once he had participated in the examination and taken subsequent steps thereof. It was also stated that, though the reservation is provided for in favor of physically disabled candidates, there is no relaxation on certain conditions that are required to be complied with; the walking test being one such condition.

5. The Tribunal while dismissing the Original Application, has in paragraph 7 and 8 stated as under:

"7. The UPSC published a notification in the year 2014. Separate set of rules was published for selection to IFS. In the instructions to the candidates also, it was clearly mentioned that a candidate must successfully complete the walking test, covering the distance of 25 kilometres in 4 hours. For woman candidates, the distance is stipulated as 14 kilometres to be covered in the same time. According to them, separate parameters are provided in favour of the disabled candidates. However, much would depend upon the nature of the requirement under the rules and the advisability or possibility of providing for relaxation. In its wisdom, the concerned Ministry did not provide for any relaxation in favour of physically disabled candidates, in the context of the walking test, even while some relaxation is provided for in favour of woman candidates. It is purely a policy: decision that was taken, on the basis of relevant inputs. The Tribunal cannot express its view on such policy matters.

8. Another aspect is that the applicants did not challenge the condition, before participating in the examination. Not only they participated in the examination, but also attempted the walking test, twice. It is fairly well settled that a candidate cannot take the chance of getting selected and then turn around and challenge the rules, if he is not selected. The selections took place way back in the year 20 17. Even if the respondents are required to amend the rules duly taking into account the interest of physically disabled candidates, that would be applicable only for future selections. No benefits would accrue to the candidates in earlier selections."

6. Mr. Pankaj Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would make similar submissions as were made before the Tribunal, that as is permitted under various other rules, a physically challenged person needs to be assessed on a