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

The applicants applied for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Executive Wing of the J&K Police pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. PERS-A-400-2009/4414-513 dated 29.01.2009

While the applicants qualified for the physical and written tests, they were not included in the final select list issued in October 2010

They challenged the selection of private respondents (Nos. 5 to 12), alleging that the respondents failed the physical tests, that a "second opportunity" for physical tests was illegally granted to certain candidates, and that the written examination pattern was changed midway from the one prescribed in Government Order No. 2988 of 2009

The official respondents contended that the applicants, having participated in the entire process without protest, could not challenge it upon failing to secure merit

1. Whether an unsuccessful candidate, after participating in the entire selection process, is estopped from challenging the criteria and procedure of the recruitment

2. Whether the grant of a second opportunity for qualifying physical tests or a change in the objective-type question format (to "fill in the blanks") constitutes a patent illegality sufficient to quash the selection list

3. Whether the selection process can be unsettled after a lapse of 15 years in the absence of proved fraud or misrepresentation

Doctrine of Acquiescence and Estoppel, which mandates that a candidate who takes a chance in a selection process without protest cannot challenge it after being declared unsuccessful

Allegations of favouritism and nepotism must be pleaded with specific particulars rather than vague assertions

Judicial policy that old selections should not be disturbed once selected candidates have served for a substantial period, unless there is clear proof of illegality or fraud

The Tribunal previously noted a similar challenge was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 1112/2010

The Tribunal reasoned that because the applicants participated in the physical, written, and viva-voce stages without objection, they were legally barred from challenging the pattern of the written exam or the grant of second opportunities to others after the final results were declared

Regarding the physical tests, the Tribunal found no evidence that the private respondents failed these tests; since these tests were merely qualifying and did not contribute to the final merit score, the grant of a second attempt to some candidates caused no prejudice to the applicants' merit positions

The change in the written test pattern was deemed irrelevant as "fill in the blanks" falls under the broad category of "objective-type" questions, and the applicants had actually benefited by qualifying that stage

The Tribunal emphasized that since 15 years had passed since the advertisement, and the selected candidates had likely been serving for over a decade, unsettling the administration without proof of fraud would be unjust

The court held that unsuccessful candidates are estopped from challenging a process they willingly participated in and that vague allegations of nepotism are insufficient to invalidate a long-standing recruitment

The Transfer Application (TA 611/2020) was dismissed with no order as to costs