Candidates participating in a selection process without protest cannot challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful.

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Band) in the Railway Protection Force under Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016.

He participated in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Measurement Test (PMT), and a Trade Test, in which he qualified.

However, his name was not included in the final merit list published on 09.01.2020.

The respondents contended that the training certificate initially submitted by the petitioner from Bhedak Sudarshan Chitra Pat Kala Vikash Mandal did not specify the required two-year duration of training.

The petitioner challenged his non-selection as arbitrary and illegal.

1. Whether a candidate can challenge the selection process after participating in it without protest and being declared unsuccessful.

2. Whether the petitioner's non-selection was valid given the deficiency in his experience certificate at the time of document verification.

The court applied the doctrine of estoppel in recruitment processes as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of J & K and Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, which holds that an unsuccessful candidate who participated in a selection process without demur cannot subsequently challenge the process itself.

The court also adhered to the eligibility criteria set out in Employment Notice No. 01 of 2016 and Directive-34 regarding the verification of musical instrument experience certificates.

The court found that the petitioner participated in the entire recruitment cycle—written examination, PET/PMT, and Trade Test—without raising any objections to the procedure or the corrigendum issued by the department.

Applying the Madan Lal precedent, the court deemed the challenge to the process maintainable.

Regarding the merits, the court noted that the petitioner’s initial certificate dated 23.11.2012 failed to mention the specific time period of training required by the advertisement.

Since the petitioner did not dispute this factual deficiency nor file a response to the respondents' counter-affidavit, the court held that any certificate produced after the conclusion of the selection process could not be considered.

Furthermore, the court noted that similar reliefs had already been declined to other candidates in CWJC No. 206 of 2021 and CWJC No. 6 of 2021.

The writ petition was dismissed.