The Terms And Conditions Can't Be Challenged After Appearing In Exams And When The Results Are Declared: CAT Allahabad

Further, it held that the candidate who participated in the selection process cannot challenge the validity of the selection process after appearing in the said selection process and taking the opportunity of being selected.

Brief Facts:

The Applicant was initially appointed as a Commercial Clerk in the Jhansi Division of North Central Railway in 1979, eventually rising to the position of Chief Commercial Instructor. In 2007, a notification was issued for the selection of Assistant Commercial Managers from Group 'C' posts, with the Applicant applying for the position. However, upon the announcement of results in 2008, the Applicant was held to be unsuccessful while two other candidates, Respondents 4 and 5, were qualified.

In response, the Applicant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, seeking access to his and Respondents 4 and 5's answer sheets. Upon inspection, the Applicant alleged bias in the selection process, stating discrepancies in the answers provided by Respondents 4 and 5, including the use of green and red ink, and the absence of a model answer sheet. Subsequently, another RTI application was made to obtain the model answer sheet, but it was revealed that it had been destroyed after evaluation.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (“Tribunal”) ordered a review of the Applicant's representation, which was subsequently rejected by the General Manager on the grounds of merit and the fairness of the selection process. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant approached the Tribunal and filed an original application.

The Applicant contended that the selection process was marred by manipulation and bias, orchestrated to favor Respondents 4 and 5. He argued that the Departmental Promotion Committee acted arbitrarily under pressure from higher railway officials, allowing Respondents 4 and 5 to qualify despite submitting incorrect answers.

Observations by the Tribunal:

The Tribunal noted that the candidates who participated in the selection process were subject to the same policy for calculating marks, consistent with the one applied to the applicant. Further, it noted that the department did not alter the terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement/notification for the departmental examination. Notably, the Applicant failed to achieve the required marks stipulated in the notification, falling short of the cut-off mark by obtaining 80 marks in the second paper where the qualifying mark was set at 90, as per the advertisement/notification.

The Tribunal noted that the appointments must adhere to rules and regulations. It held that once an Applicant has agreed to the terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement/notification, they are bound by them. Challenging these conditions after participating in the examination and declaration of results is not permissible. It held that there existed no illegality or flaw on the part of the department in disregarding the Applicant's case.

The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 585 and held that a candidate who willingly participates in a selection process forfeits the right to challenge its validity post-participation. It held that the Applicant, by voluntarily appearing before the committee and seeking a favorable recommendation, cannot subsequently contest the committee's constitution.

Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Bagda Ram vs Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: OA No. 330/109 of 2011

Advocate for the Applicant: Ashish Srivastava

Advocate for the Respondent: Ram Chandra Sahu

Click Here To Read/Download Order