Candidates cannot challenge selection process fairness after participating without success.

The 75 applicants, natives of Puducherry, applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in response to a recruitment notification dated 12.08.2025.

The selection process included a Physical Standard Test, Physical Endurance Test (PET), and Written Examination.

The PET comprised four compulsory stages, with Stage-I being a 100-metre run to be completed within 15 seconds.

The applicants participated in the PET on 20.01.2026.

They alleged that the timing for Stage-I was recorded using a partially manual and partially electronic system, which they considered inaccurate and unscientific.

Their timings were recorded as 15.20 to 15.30 seconds, marginally exceeding the 15-second limit, leading to their disqualification and the issuance of rejection slips dated 20.01.2026 and various dates in January-February 2026.

The applicants contended that they consistently completed the run within the prescribed time during practice and that the marginal excess was due to the flawed timing methodology.

They were orally informed that no appeal lay against the results of Stage-I, despite an appellate mechanism being stated to be available for Stage-IV.

Their representations for a fresh PET were unanswered.

Consequently, they filed the Original Application seeking to quash the rejection slips and direct a fresh PET with a fully electronic and scientifically accurate timing system.

The respondents, however, asserted that Radio Frequency Identification Technology (RFID) was used for accurate timing in both 100-metre and 800/200-metre events, with chips on both legs automatically recording start and finish times.

They also stated that 3,324 male candidates participated in the 100-metre run, with 2,088 qualified and 1,146 disqualified (including applicants), and that the events were conducted fairly, transparently, and supervised via CCTV by Police Officers not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicants for marginally exceeding the prescribed time in the 100-metre run during the Physical Endurance Test for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police was illegal due to an alleged flawed timing methodology and denial of appeal.

2. Whether the applicants, having participated in the selection process, can subsequently challenge its fairness after being declared unsuccessful.

The Tribunal primarily applied the legal principle that a candidate cannot question the process of selection and call it unfair after having participated in it, especially if the result is not palatable to them.

This principle was derived from the Supreme Court judgments in Om Prakash Shukla Vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043.

Anupal Singh Vs State of UP, (2020) 2 SCC 173.

Union of India Vs N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25, which reiterated that a party cannot be allowed to approbate or reprobate and cannot "blow hot and cold".

The court granted the MA allowing the applications to be joined.

In addressing the OA, the Tribunal noted the applicants were disqualified for failing to complete the 100-meter run within the stipulated 15 seconds, with their timings ranging from 15.20 to 15.30 seconds.

The court specifically observed that Radio Frequency Identification Technology (RFID) was utilized for recording accurate timings, with chips attached to the candidates' legs, and the process was automatic and recorded on a computer system.

Furthermore, it was confirmed that the candidates were briefed about the 15-second time limit.

The Tribunal also found that the Physical Standard Test (PST)/PET events were conducted in a fair and transparent manner, evidenced by CCTV coverage and supervision by senior police officers, and that a significant number of candidates (2,088 out of 3,324) had qualified.

Applying the precedents from Om Prakash Shukla, Anupal Singh, and Union of India Vs N. Murugesan, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants, having continuously participated in the selection process, including the physical endurance test, could not subsequently challenge the fairness of the methodology after their disqualification.

The court had previously dismissed a similar matter in MA 39/2026 & OA 97/2026 on 11.02.2026.

The court held that the applicants had not made out a case, primarily because they could not challenge the selection process after voluntarily participating in it and being unsuccessful, especially when the process was deemed fair and transparent with electronic timing.