A candidate who participates without objection cannot challenge recruitment terms after an unsuccessful result.

The applicant, a Sorting Assistant in the Department of Posts and a person with benchmark disability involving double amputation of both legs and thighs, applied for and participated in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) conducted for appointment to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO), IP&TAFS Group ‘B’, for 2018–19.

The notification provided for 1,010 vacancies—777 General, 151 Scheduled Caste and 82 Scheduled Tribe vacancies—but did not earmark any vacancy for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD).

The applicant participated in the examination conducted from 5 to 8 July 2018 and claimed to have secured the prescribed qualifying marks in all papers.

After the merit list was published on 1 October 2018, he challenged the absence of PwBD reservation, relying upon the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Department of Personnel and Training Office Memoranda dated 10 June 2009 and 17 May 2022.

He sought reinstatement in a suitable PwBD post, appointment as AAO with effect from 1 October 2018, back wages of ₹2,62,64,903, and grant of MACP-II promotion.

Whether the applicant, having participated in the LDCE with knowledge that no vacancy had been reserved for PwBD candidates, could subsequently challenge the terms of the recruitment notification after the result was declared and he was not included in the merit list?

Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment as AAO or other consequential relief on the basis of the alleged non-implementation of PwBD reservation and the DOP&T Office Memoranda?

Whether the applicant’s claim for back wages and deducted monetary dues from May 2007 to March 2023 could be adjudicated in the present proceedings?

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that a candidate who knowingly participates in a selection process without challenging its terms at the appropriate stage cannot, after an unsuccessful result, subsequently question the legality of that process.

This principle was derived from Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, and Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J&K, (2023) 17 SCC 147.

The applicant also relied upon the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the DOP&T Office Memoranda dated 10 June 2009 and 17 May 2022 concerning reservation in promotion for PwBD candidates, but the Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive merits of those claims because the challenge to the examination process was held to be belated.

Claims outside the relief specifically adjudicated upon were left open for consideration before the appropriate forum.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was aware, before participating in the LDCE, that the notification contained no PwBD-reserved vacancy.

Nevertheless, he participated without challenging the notification and questioned its validity only after the merit list was published and he was not selected.

Applying the principles in Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Tajvir Singh Sodhi, the Tribunal concluded that such a post-result challenge was impermissible.

Consequently, it declined to grant appointment or reinstatement as AAO on the basis of the alleged defect in the notification.

However, considering the applicant’s severe disability, it requested the respondents to examine whether he could be adjusted or considered for a suitable post consistent with the nature and extent of his disability, in accordance with applicable rules and instructions.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from examining the claim for back wages and monetary dues, leaving the applicant free to pursue that grievance before the appropriate forum.

It requested the respondents to consider whether he could be accommodated in a suitable PwBD post in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions.

The claim for back wages and monetary dues was not adjudicated, and the applicant was granted liberty to raise it before the appropriate forum.

The OA was accordingly disposed of, along with pending miscellaneous applications, without any order as to costs.