Failure to challenge exclusion from a selection process bars subsequent claims for retrospective inclusion.

The applicant was appointed as an Apprentice (Mechanic) on 29 May 1984 and, after completing training, was posted as Electric Supervisor/Chargeman on 23 October 1986.

Pursuant to a notification dated 31 December 1991, he sought to appear in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to Assistant Electrical Engineer (AEE), but was not called for the preliminary and written examinations on the ground that he lacked the requisite five years’ experience.

The AEE panel was declared on 12 August 1994.

The applicant was subsequently permitted to appear in a later LDCE and was empanelled for AEE on 6 May 1997.

He later sought placement in the 1994 panel and parity with Jagdish, who had been empanelled through the 1991 LDCE.

His representations were rejected, and, following directions in an earlier OA permitting a fresh detailed representation, his representation dated 7 June 2016 was rejected by order dated 18 October 2016.

The applicant challenged that rejection and sought retrospective service benefits, including Selection Grade, on parity with Jagdish.

Whether the applicant could challenge his exclusion from the LDCE notified on 31 December 1991 after the preliminary examination, written examination, and declaration of the panel had concluded.

Whether the applicant was entitled to have his training period counted towards the requisite qualifying service under the Railway Board’s letter dated 25 April 1981, thereby enabling him to participate in the 1991 LDCE.

Whether the applicant was entitled to parity with Jagdish, who had been empanelled in the 1994 AEE panel, and consequently to retrospective service benefits.

The applicable LDCE notification required Group ‘C’ employees to possess five years of non-fortuitous service in the relevant grade as on the prescribed cut-off date.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a candidate who does not object to his exclusion or to the eligibility conditions of a selection process at the appropriate stage cannot subsequently challenge the process after its completion; such delayed conduct attracts the doctrine of estoppel/acquiescence.

The Tribunal also considered the Railway Board’s letter dated 25 April 1981, concerning the counting of training service for appearing in departmental examinations, and the subsequent clarification dated 18 January 1993 that departmental examinations included LDCEs for promotion to Group ‘B’.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not produced any material showing that he challenged his exclusion before the preliminary test held on 16 May 1993, the written examination held on 30 April 1994, or the declaration of the panel on 12 August 1994.

Instead, he raised the issue only after being empanelled in the subsequent LDCE in 1997.

Applying the principle against belated challenges to a completed selection process, the Tribunal held that any right the applicant may have had to contest his eligibility had to be asserted during the selection process and could not be revived after its conclusion.

Consequently, the applicant could not reopen the 1991 LDCE or claim parity with Jagdish, whose empanelment arose from that concluded process.

The Tribunal therefore did not grant the claimed retrospective benefits.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit; the associated miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.