Candidates Participating in a Selection Process Without Objection are Estopped from Subsequently Challenging the Evaluation Methodology.

The applicant, a Technician Grade II in the Southern Railways, appeared for a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) on 19.11.2016 for the post of Junior Engineer (Track Machines) under the 25% Rankers’ Quota

During the process, three questions were identified by the question setter as ambiguous, out of syllabus, or of an excessively high standard

While the applicant contended that instructions were issued to award 3 grace marks for these questions, the respondents instead excluded those questions from evaluation

Consequently, the total marks were reduced from 100 to 97. The applicant secured 58 marks out of 97 (approx. 59.79%), falling short of the mandatory 60% qualifying threshold (58.2 marks)

The applicant challenged his non-inclusion in the selection panel published on 02.02.2017

1. Whether the respondents were legally obligated to award grace marks for defective questions rather than excluding them from the total evaluation

2. Whether a candidate, after participating in a selection process without protest, is estopped from challenging the evaluation methodology upon being declared unsuccessful

Paragraph 219 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, which governs selection procedures and moderation

The principle of "estoppel by conduct" as established in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 357 and Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100, which holds that candidates participating in a selection process with full knowledge cannot later challenge the procedure

The doctrine that the only exception to this waiver is the presence of mala fides, as established in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh (2008) 4 SCC 619, and the finality of participation per State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1706

The Tribunal found that the respondents adopted a uniform and non-discriminatory procedure by excluding the three defective questions for all candidates, reducing the denominator to 97 marks

It was determined that the grant of grace marks is not a matter of right but a discretionary administrative decision; here, the competent authority (CE/TMC) followed the Selection Board’s recommendation to exclude questions instead of awarding additional marks

The Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to meet the revised qualifying mark of 58.2 (60% of 97)

Applying the cited precedents, the Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant participated in the written examination without objection, he was precluded from challenging the methodology only after failing to secure the minimum pass marks

No evidence of mala fides or procedural illegality was found in the uniform evaluation scheme

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to meet the 60% qualifying standard of 58.2 marks. The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no relief was granted