A candidate who participates without objection cannot challenge the selection process after an unsuccessful result.

The applicant, a Senior Technical Officer-I at the National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, challenged the appointment of the third respondent as Scientist ‘C’ (Immunology).

The third respondent exceeded the advertised upper age limit of 40 years.

The Screening Committee nevertheless shortlisted him subject to approval of one-time age relaxation, which the competent authority granted before the written examination.

The applicant alleged that the relaxation was procedurally improper, that the second respondent’s participation in the Selection Committee compromised the process, and that the applicant would have had a better chance of selection had the third respondent been excluded.

The applicant participated in the selection process and challenged the appointment after being unsuccessful.

Whether the third respondent’s candidature was liable to be rejected because he had not sought age relaxation with his original application, and whether the relaxation granted shortly before the examination was invalid.

Whether the second respondent’s membership of the Selection Committee, together with his forwarding of the age-relaxation request, vitiated the selection for bias or procedural impropriety.

Whether the applicant, having participated in the selection without contemporaneous objection, could challenge the process after being unsuccessful.

The applicable Health Research Scientist Cadre Rules and recruitment conditions permitted age relaxation in specified cases, including one-time relaxation for eligible scientific and technical staff working in long-term ICMR projects; the Tribunal found no requirement that a separate relaxation request invariably accompany the original application.

Judicial review of expert selection decisions is limited: under Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434, and the authorities discussed in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, courts do not reassess comparative merit and intervene only on grounds such as illegality, material procedural irregularity, or proved mala fides.

Further, Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, and Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, support the principle that a candidate who participates without objection ordinarily cannot challenge the selection process after an unsuccessful outcome.

The Tribunal held that the Screening Committee had expressly made the third respondent’s candidature subject to approval of age relaxation, rather than treating him as unconditionally eligible.

The competent authority approved the relaxation and communicated it before the examination; the timing of that approval alone did not establish illegality, particularly as the rules did not require the request to accompany the initial application.

The record did not establish that the second respondent’s committee membership was prohibited, that he had a disqualifying conflict, or that his participation caused prejudice or actual bias.

Finally, the applicant raised no timely objection despite participating in the selection, and the Tribunal applied the waiver and acquiescence principle to reject his post-selection challenge.

It held that the applicant had not established illegality, procedural irregularity, or bias and was precluded from challenging the process after participating without objection.

The Original Application was dismissed, with the parties directed to bear costs.