Post-participation challenges to recruitment are barred; territorial jurisdiction vests with the Tribunal local to the recruiting board.

The applicants are candidates for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) recruited via Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) No. 01/2024

While the recruitment was initiated through a centralized notification by the Ministry of Railways, candidates were required to apply to specific zonal Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs), such as Ahmedabad, Prayagraj, and Bangalore

The applicants alleged that the Computer Based Aptitude Test (CBAT) held on 15.07.2025 suffered from widespread technical glitches, including system lockups

They challenged the final merit list, seeking score normalization across different shifts and a re-conduct of the examination for affected candidates

The respondents filed M.A. No. 1404/2026, challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, arguing that legal issues must be raised before the CAT Benches where the respective RRBs are located

1. Whether the Principal Bench has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a combined challenge against multiple zonal RRBs based on a centralized employment notification

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to a revision of the merit list or a re-examination based on post-participation grievances regarding technical glitches and normalization

The court primarily applied Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which defines the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal’s Benches

It strictly interpreted Clause 20.0 (f) of the Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) No. 01/2024, which mandates that any legal issue arising out of the CEN falls within the jurisdiction of the respective CAT Bench where the concerned RRB is located

Additionally, the court applied the established judicial principle that candidates who participate in a selection process without protest cannot ordinarily challenge the process after failing to qualify, except upon providing substantive material evidence of arbitrariness

The Tribunal analyzed the recruitment framework, noting that although the policy was centralized, the implementation—including application, examination, and merit list preparation—was RRB-specific

The court found that Clause 13(c) and Clause 20.0(f) of the CEN were binding, effectively ousting the Principal Bench’s jurisdiction for candidates who applied to RRBs outside Delhi

Regarding the merits, the court observed that technical glitches leading to re-examinations were "center-specific" and not "universally applicable" across all shifts or RRBs

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants failed to produce evidence that their specific centers were affected by detected irregularities

It concluded that entertaining post-participation "apprehensions" without substantive proof would frustrate the recruitment of thousands of other candidates and erode public trust in the selection process

The court held that the joinder of applicants from different zones in a single proceeding at the Principal Bench was impermissible under the specific jurisdictional stipulations of CEN No. 01/2024

It further held that post-participation grievances regarding normalization and technical issues do not confer a vested right to assail the recruitment process

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed, with no order as to costs