Candidates participating in a selection process are estopped from challenging recruitment criteria after failing to secure selection.

The applicants, possessing Master’s Degrees in Physical Education, applied for the post of Lecturer Physical Education pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 09-PSC(DR-P) of 2014 dated 20.03.2014

The J&K Public Service Commission (JKPSC) conducted a written screening test on 29.11.2015 to shortlist candidates for interviews

The final selection list was issued on 02.02.2016, and appointment orders were issued on 24.02.2016

The applicants challenged the selection on the grounds that the written test marks were not included in the final merit, and that Rule 51 of the JKPSC (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980—which allotted 40 marks to viva voce and gave high weightage to academic merit—was arbitrary and contrary to Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012

They also alleged a lack of uniformity due to the constitution of multiple interview boards

1. Whether the marks obtained in a written screening test must be counted toward the preparation of final merit in the absence of such a provision in the advertisement or recruitment rules

2. Whether candidates who participated in a selection process with full knowledge of the criteria are estopped from challenging said criteria after being declared unsuccessful

3. Whether amended selection criteria can be applied retrospectively to a recruitment process that commenced before the amendment took effect

The Tribunal applied the doctrine of Estoppel and Acquiescence, as established in Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) and Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal (2008), which holds that unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge selection criteria after participating in the process

The principle of "Rules of the Game" from Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar (2017) was applied, stating that selection rules cannot be changed midway

Regarding interview weightage, the Tribunal noted the caution in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) but maintained that high viva voce marks do not per se invalidate a selection unless mala fides are proved

It further applied the principle that executive instructions (GO No. 252-HE of 2012) cannot override statutory Business Rules unless formal amendments are incorporated

The Tribunal reasoned that the 2014 advertisement explicitly notified that Rule 51 would govern the selection, and the written test was strictly for "screening" or shortlisting, not for final merit determination

By participating in the interviews without protest, the applicants waived their right to challenge the 40-mark viva voce allocation or the academic weightage

The Tribunal rejected the reliance on GO No. 252-HE of 2012, noting that the JKPSC’s amended criteria (incorporating written test marks) were only applicable prospectively from 01.01.2016, whereas this process began in 2014; applying it retrospectively would illegally change the rules midway

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence of mala fides in the use of multiple interview boards, describing them as an "administrative necessity" for large candidate pools

It emphasized that in the absence of fraud or glaring illegality, the court should not disturb appointments of candidates serving since 2016

It held that: (i) screening test marks cannot be read into final merit unless specifically notified; (ii) the applicants were estopped from challenging the criteria after failing the selection; and (iii) the selection was conducted legally under the rules existing at the time of the advertisement

All interim orders were vacated