Participation in a selection process without objection precludes a subsequent challenge to a co-candidate's eligibility upon failure.

The Applicant, a Senior Technician in North Railway, challenged the selection of Respondent No. 6 (Aurangeb Khan) to the post of JE-II (Electrical) under the 25% Intermediate Apprentice (I.A.) quota pursuant to a notification dated 19.01.2011

The eligibility criteria required candidates to be below 47 years of age, have three years of service, and possess a 10+2 Science stream qualification or ITI certification

Both parties appeared for the written examination on 12.09.2015; Respondent No. 6 was selected, while the Applicant failed to make the merit list

The Applicant contended that Respondent No. 6 was ineligible because he had originally completed his 10th and 12th grades in the Arts stream and subsequently obtained a Science intermediate marksheet from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) in five subjects in 2010, allegedly in violation of NIOS rules which supposedly only allow "Part Admission" for up to four subjects for those already holding a senior secondary qualification

1. Whether the selection of Respondent No. 6 was vitiated due to alleged fraudulent acquisition of educational qualifications from NIOS in violation of its internal enrollment rules

2. Whether the Applicant was estopped from challenging the eligibility of Respondent No. 6 after having participated in the selection process without protest until the declaration of results

The Tribunal applied the notification eligibility criteria under PS No. 13217/06, which mandates a 10+2 science stream qualification for the post

Principle of Estoppel, which prevents a candidate from challenging the selection process or the eligibility of competitors after participating in the process and failing to secure a rank

The Tribunal also acknowledged the NIOS "Scheme of Academic Courses" regarding dual enrollment and part admission, which governs the issuance of marksheets versus certificates

The Tribunal found that Respondent No. 6 had obtained explicit departmental permission on 07.07.2010 to appear for the 12th Science examination via NIOS and had been granted leave for the exams

Although NIOS rules suggest that previously qualified students should only opt for up to four subjects for "updating knowledge," the Tribunal reasoned that Respondent No. 6 successfully cleared five science-related subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Maths, etc.), and the mere fact that he took five subjects instead of four did not negate the fact that he acquired the requisite science knowledge mandated by the recruitment rules

Furthermore, while NIOS stated they could not verify records beyond five years, they did not deny the validity of the marksheet produced

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not raise any objections when the list of eligible candidates was published on 07.08.2015, only doing so after the final merit list showed he was not selected

The Tribunal concluded that since the Respondent possessed the requisite science qualification and the Applicant had participated without initial protest, there was no merit in the challenge

No order as to costs was made