Cancellation of selection panel for minor, rectifiable irregularities after completion of training is arbitrary and disproportionate.

The applicants, Technicians in the Rajkot Division of Western Railway, participated in a selection process for promotion to Junior Engineer (Mechanical – C&W) under the 25% Ranker Quota pursuant to a notification dated 18.06.2024

After qualifying for the Computer Based Test (CBT) on 28.09.2024, they were placed on the final panel of successful candidates notified on 14.11.2024

They subsequently completed a mandatory 13-week promotional training and were declared "passed" on 12.03.2025

On 17.04.2025, the respondents issued a show-cause notice proposing to cancel the entire selection process and the panel, citing two irregularities: an incorrect reference to negative marking rules in the initial notification and the alleged exclusion of ancillary categories from the eligibility list

Despite the applicants' representations, the respondents scrapped the entire panel on 02.05.2025

The applicants challenged these decisions as arbitrary and illegal

1. Whether the impugned show cause notice dated 17.04.2025 and the consequential orders dated 02.05.2025 cancelling the entire selection process and panel are legally sustainable.

2. Whether the objections raised by unsuccessful candidates after participating in the selection process without protest are barred by the principles of estoppel and waiver.

3. Whether the alleged irregularities regarding negative marking and the exclusion of certain candidates were of such a grave nature as to vitiate the entire selection process.

4. Whether the cancellation of the panel after the declaration of results and completion of training was arbitrary and disproportionate.

principles of Estoppel and Waiver, as established in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, which prevents candidates from challenging a selection process after participating in it and being declared unsuccessful

Doctrine of Proportionality from Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikikathu, which mandates that an entire selection process should not be cancelled unless irregularities are widespread and inseparable from the untainted results

Master Circular No. 31 regarding Railway promotions, which stipulates that a panel once approved should not normally be cancelled and that representations against a panel must be submitted within two months

Constitutional standard from Tej Prakash Pathak v. Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, prohibiting the "changing of the rules of the game" midway through a recruitment process

Regarding the "Negative Marking Issue," the court noted that although the notification cited the wrong RBE, candidates were informed on their computer screens before the exam that no negative marking would apply—a fact admitted even by the unsuccessful objectors

the court held that since this error was corrected before the exam and caused no prejudice, it could not vitiate the selection

On the "Exclusion of Candidates," the Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to prove any actual exclusion of eligible staff; many were either unwilling, ineligible, or already in equivalent pay scales

Even if minor omissions occurred, the court reasoned they were remediable via supplementary exams rather than scrapping the entire panel

the court applied the principle of estoppel, noting that the objectors only complained after failing the exam

The Tribunal characterized the respondents' sudden "U-turn" (cancelling the panel after results and 13 weeks of training) as an arbitrary exercise of power lacking bona fide reasons and violating the proportionality test

It held that the impugned show cause notice (17.04.2025) and the cancellation decisions (02.05.2025) were illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable

The Tribunal quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to release the promotion orders for the applicants forthwith, based on the panel dated 14.11.2024, with all consequential benefits effective from the date they passed their promotional training (13.03.2025)

The Original Applications were allowed with no order as to costs