Candidates who participate without objection cannot later challenge eligibility criteria after failing selection.

The applicants, Railway employees in the Signal and Telecommunication Department, challenged a panel dated 30 October 2024 for promotion to Junior Engineer-II/Signal under the 20% LDCE quota.

They contended that private respondents 5–7 lacked the required three years’ regular service as of the notification date, 20 October 2023.

The applicants had participated in the written examination and subsequent selection stages; after the panel was issued, they sought its amendment and challenged the inclusion of the private respondents.

The Railway respondents maintained that the private respondents were eligible because, under Railway Board instructions, their initial training period counted as service for eligibility to appear in departmental examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed the application.

Whether private respondents 5–7 satisfied the three-year service eligibility requirement for the LDCE, including whether their initial training period could be counted for that purpose.

Whether the applicants, having participated in the selection without challenging the eligibility list at the appropriate stage, could subsequently challenge the private respondents’ inclusion in the panel.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an application before the Tribunal.

The notification required eligible employees to have three years’ regular service as of 20 October 2023.

Railway Board instructions dated 25 April 1981 and 18 January 1993, as clarified on 25 June 2019, provide that training immediately preceding appointment may be counted as service for appearing in departmental examinations, including LDCEs; that treatment is limited to examination eligibility and does not count training towards seniority.

Under Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171, and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, a candidate who knowingly participates in a selection without demur may be precluded from challenging its criteria or methodology after an unsuccessful result.

The Tribunal treated the Railway Board instructions as applicable to the eligibility question, distinguishing the limited counting of training for appearing in departmental examinations from its exclusion for seniority purposes.

It found that the record did not establish that the respondents had acted contrary to those instructions when counting the private respondents’ initial training for eligibility.

The applicants had participated in the examination and subsequent stages without challenging the eligibility list, and raised their objection only after the panel was issued.

Applying the participation-without-objection principle in Dhananjay Malik and Ramesh Chandra Shah, the Tribunal held that the applicants could not establish a basis to set aside the panel on the grounds raised.

It declined to interfere with the panel dated 30 October 2024 and dismissed the Original Application, with no order as to costs.

Any interim order was discharged, and related miscellaneous applications were disposed of.