Unsuccessful candidates participating in a selection process without protest cannot subsequently challenge the evaluation criteria.

The applicants, belonging to SC/ST categories, appeared in a 1999 departmental competitive examination for the post of Junior Telecom Officer (JTO)

They failed to qualify because the respondents did not apply relaxed evaluation standards

The respondents had previously reduced marks to 20% for SC/STs via a 1997 circular, but withdrew this benefit following the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Vinod Kumar, which prohibited separate standards for promotions

The applicants approached the Tribunal in 2015, arguing that because S. Vinod Kumar was later overruled by the Constitution Bench in Rohtas Bhankhar v. UOI (2014), they should retrospectively receive the benefit of relaxation for the 1999 exam

1. Whether the applicants are barred from seeking relief due to inordinate delay and laches in filing the application sixteen years after the examination

2. Whether an unsuccessful candidate, having participated in a selection process without protest, can subsequently challenge the evaluation criteria after failing

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of relaxed standards for results finalized between 1997 and 2000

The court applied the principle of "vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" (law assists the vigilant), citing Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, holding that those who sleep over their rights are not entitled to relief

It further applied the doctrine of estoppel in recruitment as established in Madan Lal v. J & K and Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, which prevents unsuccessful candidates from challenging the selection process post-facto

Regarding the relaxation policy, the court relied on the BSNL Circular dated 10.03.2003, which explicitly excluded results finalized between 27.07.1997 and 03.10.2000 from the application of relaxed standards

The Tribunal found that the cause of action arose in 2003, yet the applicants waited until 2015 to file the OA, triggered only by a favorable judgment in a third-party case (R.D. Choudhary); such "sleeping over rights" is fatal to the claim

Applying the Madan Lal ratio, the court reasoned that the applicants took a chance by appearing in the 1999 exam and could not turn around to challenge the criteria simply because the result was "not palatable" to them

Substantively, the court noted that the circular holding uniform standards was valid during the relevant period (1997-2000) pursuant to the prevailing law of the time (S. Vinod Kumar), and the subsequent 2003 policy specifically barred retrospective relaxation for exams conducted in that window

Furthermore, the applicants failed to prove that any vacancies from the 1996-1998 period still existed

It held that the claim was barred by limitation and the principle of laches

It further held that the applicants were not legally entitled to relaxed standards for the 1999 examination under the then-prevailing administrative circulars and judicial precedents

No order as to costs was made