Unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge the fairness of a recruitment process after participating in it.

3. Central Vigilance Commissioner, CVC, Satakata Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi - 110023. ………Respondents Advocate for the respondents: Shri A.P. Khare O R D E R By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (Judicial) :-

Pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.08.2010 for filling the post of Labour (Quasi Skilled), the applicants applied and appeared in the written examination scheduled to be held on 21.09.2014. The result of the written examination was declared on 30.09.2014 in which the applicants were not find place. Therefore, the applicants have filed the instant original application for quashing the entire selection process mainly on the ground that the respondents have violated the condition shown at item no. 6 (C) of the advertisement dated 21.08.2010 (Annexure A-2). The applicants contended that the respondents have no right to change the conditions mentioned in the advertisement looking to the large strength of the candidates. The applicants vehemently stated that for the post of Semi-Skilled Labour the physical test before conducting the written examination was a condition stipulated in the advertisement as only those candidates can be permitted for appearing in the written examination who have been declared physically fit. The applicants also contended that the use of private agency in conducting the written examination was not in accordance with rules as the recruitment is for public post and not for private post.

2. On the other hand, the respondents have refuted the claim of the applicants and have filed reply stating therein that after completion of written examination, evaluation was carried out in OFK premises itself and thereafter, those who were provisionally selected were called for document verification, physical endurance & medical examination which was held w.e.f. 27.10.2014 to 31.10.2014. The respondents further contended that the applicant having Roll No.20320381 had appeared in Written Examination and obtained 50 marks only. So far as the applicant no. 2 is concerned, the respondents have stated that Sangeeta Yadav D/o Mishri Lal Yadav who is the sister of Tirath Prasad Yadav S/o Mishri Lal Yadav had not applied for the post of Labour (Semi Skilled), therefore, she has no locus to file the present OA.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 07.04.2025, nobody had appeared on behalf of the applicants. Therefore, being a very old matter pertaining to the year 2014, we heard Shri A.P. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant as per CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987.

4. Admittedly the present O.A has been filed by those candidates, who appeared pursuant to the advisement dated21.08.2010 and remain unsuccessful. When a candidate appeared in the examination without protest and subsequently it was found to be not successful in the examination pursuance to which he appeared in the examination. Merely because the result of the examination is not palatable to him cannot turn around and subsequently challenge the selection process. The law on the subject has been crystallized by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal Vs. J & K – 1995 (3) SCC-486 and subsequently in the case of Dhananjay Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others – 2008 (4) SCC-171. The Apex Court in the case of Sadananda Holo & Ors. Vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Ors. –

2008 (4) SCC page 619 in Para 59 has held as under: -

“59. It is also a settled position that unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course, the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar where one of us (Sinha,J) was a party. This was a case where different