Unsuccessful candidates are estopped from challenging selection criteria after participating in the recruitment process without protest.

The eight applicants, residents of District Poonch belonging to RBA and Open Merit (OM) categories, applied for the post of Constable in the J Police pursuant to a 2015 advertisement

While the applicants qualified for the physical tests, they remained unsuccessful in the final select list issued on 25.06.2016

The applicants challenged the selection of private respondents (No. 4 to 22), alleging that less qualified and underage candidates were selected, horizontal reservation for SPOs was misapplied, and the written examination procedure (permitting crossing out answers on OMR/OCR sheets) was manipulated and lacked transparency

The respondents contended that the applicants failed to meet the cut-off marks (55 for OM; 45 for RBA) and that the recruitment process followed all notified norms

1. Whether the selection of a candidate with lower academic qualifications over a candidate with higher qualifications (e.g., M.A., B.Ed.) is legally sustainable when selection is based on written examination merit

2. Whether the recruitment process was vitiated by permitting candidates to cross out and remark options on answer sheets and the use of Intelligent Character Recognition (ICR) technology

3. Whether the applicants are estopped from challenging the selection criteria after participating in the process and failing to secure merit

The Tribunal applied the principle that selection to public posts must strictly follow the notified criteria and comparative merit, rather than academic qualifications exceeding the eligibility requirement

It relied on the doctrine of estoppel, as established by the Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of J (1995), which holds that unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge a selection process after participating in it without protest

This was further supported by Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) and Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar (2017), reinforcing that candidates cannot "approbate and reprobate" the recruitment criteria after failing the exam

The Tribunal found that the applicants' marks were significantly below the prescribed cut-offs; for instance, Applicant No. 1 secured 41 marks against the RBA cut-off of 45 and Respondent No. 22’s 53 marks

The court rejected the argument regarding higher qualifications, noting that the advertisement did not provide for "preference" or "bonus marks" for degrees like M.A./B.Ed.; thus, merit was defined solely by the written test scores

Regarding the challenge to the OMR/OCR procedure, the Tribunal noted that the instructions were widely published beforehand, and the applicants participated with full knowledge, thereby attracting the principle of estoppel

The use of ICR technology was deemed a reasonable facility provided uniformly to all candidates to reconsider answers, and no evidence of individual manipulation or mala fides was produced

The allegation that Respondent No. 22 was underage was found factually incorrect based on the birth criteria specified in the notification

The court concluded that mere participation confers no right to appointment if the candidate fails to meet the merit threshold

The selection of private respondents No. 4 to 22 was upheld, particularly as they had already served for several years since 2016, and unsettling a completed selection after such a lapse of time without proven illegality was deemed unwarranted

No order as to costs