Eligibility criteria cannot change midway in recruitment unless rules permit; participants estopped from challenging process or others' eligibility after failure without prior protest.

ORDER

(By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri A.K. Dave and Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Vijay Kumar Singh and Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

“(i) To quash the order dated 09-03-2017 (Annexure No. A-1) passed by the respondent no 1 and 2.

(ii) Direct the respondents to consider the promotion of the applicants on the post of Assistant Station Master in accordance with law.

(iii) To pass any order which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award cost in favour of the applicant.”

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicants challenging the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the respondent no 1 and 2 by way of which the respondents have selected the respondents no 003 to 8 (private respondents) on the posts of Assistant Station Master issued in view of notification / advertisement dated 24.02.2016. The contention of the applicants is that respondents have illegally selected non-deserving and ineligible candidates. They have alleged that they were fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria as was prescribed in the notification / advertisement and despite being successful at all the stages of the examination, the respondents have not selected them and instead they have illegally selected respondents no 03 to 08. The applicants have also alleged that the respondents have changed the terms and conditions of the advertisement midway through the selection process as the private respondents are Group D employees with less than five years service but still they were permitted to appear in the examination. Thus, by way of the present OA, the applicants have sought quashing of the order dated 09.03.2017 with further direction to the respondents to consider the promotion of the applicants on the post of Assistant Station Master in accordance with law.

Counter on behalf of respondents no 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 has been filed on 13.07.2018 wherein it has been stated that the aforesaid persons were not Group D employee at the time of issuance of advertisement and thus the conditions of completion of 5 years service did not apply on them. The aforesaid candidates were Group C employee and hence they appeared in the selection process in which they turned out to be successful and thus no illegality and infirmity cannot be attributed to their selection as the entire selection process was carried out in accordance with extant rules and procedure.

Counter reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no 8 wherein it has been contended that the aforesaid candidate was already working on Group C post and not on Group D post and thus his length of service was immaterial in view of the condition prescribed in the advertisement. It has also been stated that the respondent no 8 was fully eligible to appear in the selection process and entire selection process was carried out in accordance with rules and the candidate was successful in every stage of the examination viz. written test, psyco test as well as in granting of marks on the basis of service records.

Supplementary Affidavits dated 09.01.2020 and 12.04.2019 have been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that all the private respondents were worki