Unsuccessful candidates are estopped from challenging expert-finalized answer keys after participating in the selection process without protest.

The applicant, an OBC candidate, participated in BSNL’s 2016 recruitment drive for 2,700 Junior Engineer posts

He secured 112.05 marks, while the last selected OBC candidate secured 113 marks

The first answer key indicated "0 and 1" (the applicant’s choice), but a revised second key changed the answer to "–1 and 1"

This revision resulted in a loss of 1.25 marks for the applicant, placing him below the cutoff

The applicant challenged the revision as scientifically incorrect, citing standard engineering textbooks

During the pendency of the OA, the applicant was appointed against an unfilled vacancy on June 22, 2018, after furnishing an undertaking

The respondents contended that the revision followed a report by a duly constituted Expert Committee after inviting objections

1. Whether the respondents’ action in revising the answer key for Question No. 60 was illegal and whether the Tribunal can adjudicate the scientific correctness of an answer finalized by an Expert Committee.

2. Whether a candidate, having participated in a selection process without protest, is entitled to challenge the selection methodology or answer key after being declared unsuccessful.

The Tribunal applied Clause 37 of the Recruitment Notification (26.04.2016), which explicitly prohibits revaluation

It relied on the principle of administrative finality regarding Expert Committee reports, asserting that courts are not equipped to sit in judgment over technical expert bodies

Precedentially, the court applied the doctrine of estoppel as established in Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576 and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi (2013) 11 SCC 309, which holds that candidates who participate in a selection process with full knowledge of the rules waive their right to challenge the methodology subsequently

It further cited Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 regarding the non-maintainability of challenges by unsuccessful candidates

The Tribunal reasoned that the recruitment process was conducted transparently, involving a provisional answer key and a window for objections which were reviewed by an Expert Committee

It held that evaluating the correctness of technical answers is beyond the Tribunal's scope and that interfering with a finalized All-India merit list after nine years would cause undue disruption

The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant had already accepted an appointment in 2018 via an undertaking, thereby settling his individual grievance

By applying the Supreme Court's "participation without protest" rule, the Tribunal determined that the applicant was legally barred from questioning the evaluation process after failing to meet the initial merit cutoff

The Court ruled that since the applicant participated in the selection process knowing the rules and was subsequently appointed during the litigation, no further relief was warranted

The prayer to declare the revised answer key invalid was rejected, and the OA was dismissed as devoid of merits