2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5788

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
8365/2021
T.A./6055/2021

Unsuccessful candidates who participate in a selection process with full knowledge of the notified criteria are estopped from challenging the same after failing to secure selection.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Fairness in selection process - J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 - Rule 51 and Rule 40 - Weightage to academic merit and viva voce - Selection criteria - Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 - Policy direction not overriding notified rules - Principles of estoppel and acquiescence - Rule against changing selection criteria mid-way.

(B) Service Law - Recruitment and Selection - Challenge to selection process after participation - Unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge notified criteria after participation - Principle laid down in Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486; Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171; and Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357 - Candidates who take a chance by participating in the interview cannot challenge the process merely because the result is not favourable to them. (Paras 23-24)

(C) Service Law - Selection criteria - Applicability of amended rules - Executive instruction or policy direction cannot override notified selection rules or criteria governing an ongoing recruitment process - Rules of selection cannot be changed midway - Amended criteria made applicable prospectively to selections initiated after 01.01.2016 could not be applied retrospectively to selection initiated in 2014. (Paras 25-27)

(D) Evidence - Interview process - Constitution of multiple interview boards - Not a ground to vitiate selection without proof of mala fides, arbitrariness or deliberate manipulation - Administrative necessity where large number of candidates are to be interviewed. (Para 31)

Facts of the case:
The present Transfer Application arose out of SWP No. 1125/2016, transferred from the High Court. The applicants challenged the selection and appointment to the posts of Lecturer Physical Education pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 09-PSC(DR-P) of 2014 dated 20.03.2014, whereby 193 posts were advertised by the J&K Public Service Commission. The selection list was issued vide Notification No. 01-PSC(DR-S) of 2016 dated 02.02.2016, and the selected candidates were appointed vide Government Order No. 45-Edu(Tech) of 2016 dated 24.02.2016. The applicants' grievance was that though a written screening test was held on 29.11.2015, the marks obtained therein were not counted for preparation of final merit. The selection was based on Rule 51 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980, which allocated 40 marks to viva voce, 45 marks for academic merit, and other marks for higher qualification, experience, sports distinction, NCC and special attributes. The applicants contended that Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 had directed that weightage to academic marks be dispensed with and a uniform written test be held. They also challenged allocation of 40 marks to viva voce as excessive and alleged arbitrariness in constitution of multiple interview boards. The applicants participated in the written test and interview but were unsuccessful. (Paras 3, 9-14)

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that the advertisement notification clearly indicated the applicable criteria. The written test was conducted only for shortlisting candidates for interview and was not notified for preparation of final merit. Candidates who participated with full knowledge of the criteria could not challenge it after being unsuccessful, being hit by principles of acquiescence and estoppel. Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 was a policy direction requiring incorporation in relevant rules and could not override the notified selection rules governing the ongoing recruitment. The amended criteria were made applicable prospectively to selections initiated after 01.01.2016 and could not be applied retrospectively. There was no material to show mala fides, manipulation, fraud or violation of statutory rules. Constitution of multiple interview boards was an administrative necessity. The applicants failed to make out any case for interference. (Paras 20-35)

Issues: The main issues were whether the selection made pursuant to Advertisement Notification dated 20.03.2014 could be interfered with on the ground that the written screening test marks were not counted for final merit, and whether the challenge by candidates who had participated in the process was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a selection made under notified criteria cannot be challenged by unsuccessful candidates who participated with full knowledge of the criteria. The purpose of a screening test is limited to shortlisting, and unless the advertisement or applicable Rules specifically provide that screening test marks shall be counted for final selection, such marks cannot be read into the final merit criteria by judicial interpretation. An executive instruction cannot override the notified selection rules governing an ongoing recruitment process, and the rules of selection cannot be changed midway. (Paras 21-27) Result : Transfer Application dismissed. Interim order vacated. No order as to costs. Pending MAs disposed of. (Para 37-38)