Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 538
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, J, MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, A
Jawaid Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
D/o Power Development Ut Of J&k – Respondent
T.A./4243/2021
Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld. DAG, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, ld. DAG
A candidate who participates in a selection process without protest cannot challenge it later upon failure, as established by service jurisprudence.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Service Law - Recruitment Process - The petitioner challenged the selection process for Junior Engineer (Electric) posts under the ST category, claiming non-fulfillment of statutory reservation. The petitioner participated in the selection but did not secure a position, being placed third on the waiting list. The respondents maintained that the selection adhered to statutory requirements, including the correction of ST category vacancies. The court held that a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest cannot later challenge it upon failure. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Estoppel - A candidate who participates in a selection process knowing the eligibility criteria cannot challenge it later if unsuccessful. The court reaffirmed this principle, citing relevant case laws. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a B.Tech graduate, applied for Junior Engineer (Electric) posts under the ST category but was placed on the waiting list after failing to meet the cut-off. The selection process was conducted for 315 posts, including 30 under the ST category, with discrepancies noted in category-wise selections. The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to select the required number of candidates under the ST category.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the selection process met statutory requirements and that the petitioner’s challenge was an afterthought.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can challenge the selection process after participating without raising objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that participation in the selection process without protest bars subsequent challenges, reaffirming established legal principles.
Result: TA is dismissed.
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 2079/2020 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/4243/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:
a) “allow the present Writ Petition.
b) command and direct the respondent No. 2 to select 32 candidates as Junior Engineer (Electric) Grade II State Cadre under ST Category and consequently respondent No. 3 be directed to appoint 32 candidates as Junior Engineer (Electric) Grade II State Cadre under ST Category.
c) command and direct the respondent No. 3 to consider and appoint the petitioner as Junior Engineer (Electric) Grade II State Cadre pursuant to the Select List published by respondent No. 2.
d) any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may consider just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents”.
3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The petitioner, a qualified B.Tech graduate, was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Electric) on a contractual basis following an advertisement issued by the State. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 issued Advertisement Notice No. 04 of 2004, inviting applications for 315 posts of Junior Engineer (Electric), Grade II, in the Power Development Department, including reserved vacancies under various categories. The petitioner applied under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. According to the reservation rules, 10% of the total posts (i.e., 31 posts) were to be allocated to the ST category instead of the initially advertised 30 posts. The respondents conducted the recruitment process and published a select list of 323 candidates instead of the originally advertised 315. The correction in ST category posts was made in the final selection list, where 31 candidates were selected under the ST category instead of 30.
b) The petitioner was placed at Serial No. 3 in the Waiting List under the ST category. It was noted that while 315 posts were initially advertised, the selection was ultimately made for 323 posts. Discrepancies arose in category-wise selections, with 65 candidates being selected under the RBA category instead of 63 and 27 candidates under the SC category instead of the advertised 26. Additionally, due to the 10% ST reservation, the respondents were required to select 32 candidates under the ST category but instead selected only 31. Two selected candidates under the ST category did not join, resulting in two vacancies. Consequently, candidates at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 from the Wait List were appointed against these vacancies. The petitioner, ranked third in the Wait List, would have been appointed if the respondents had fulfilled their statutory obligation of selecting 32 candidates under the ST category.
c) Despite repeated representations, the respondents failed to redress the petitioner’s grievance. The petitioner has made several attempts to seek justice but has been left without relief. Aggrieved by the respondents' inaction, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court through the present writ petition, seeking redressal of his grievances.
4. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have submitted their objections, contending that the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Electric) under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 4 of 2004, which advertised 315 vacancies, including 30 posts under the ST category. The petitioner secured 53.53 points in the selection process, whereas the last cut-off in the ST category was 54.59 points. Consequently, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 3 in the waiting list and did not make the final merit list.
b) The respondents further submit that the petitioner did not challenge the adv
