Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Md Danish Eqbal vs Railway Recruitment Board on 26 May, 2020
:--'V:// 1 I oa/781/2019
ry.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
; 2^ ^ '
O.A/350/781/2019 Date of Order* 2^
Coram- Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Md. Danish Eqbal, son of Md. Asghar, residing
at House No. A/1, Railway Market, Adra, S.E.
Railway, P.0 & P.S-Adra, District - Purulia,
Pin: 723121.
-•Applicant
-versus-
1. Union of India, service through the Chairman,
Railway Recruitment Board, Kolkata A.V
Complex, Chitpur, Opposite of R.G Kar Medical
College & Hospital, R. G. Kar Road, Kolkata
700037.
2. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board,
Kolkata A.V Complex, Chitpur, Opposite of R.G
Kar Medical College & Hospital, R. G. Kar
Road, Kolkata 700037.
3. The Secretary, Chairman, Railway Recruitment-
Board, Kolkata A.V Complex, Chitpur, Opposite
of R.G Kar Medical College &. Hospital,- R, G.
Kar Road, Kolkata 700037.
4. The Senior Personnel Officer (Bills), S. E.
Railway, 11 Garden Reach Road, Kolkata -
700043.
5. The Senior Personnel Officer, S&T Eastern
Railway, Fairlie Place, Strand Road, Kolkata -
700001.
--Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. A. B. Ghosh, counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. B. P. Manna
ORDER
Per: Ms. Bidisha Baneriee. Member (J):
The applicant, an aspirant for the post of Goods Guard/ E.C.R.C under South Eastern Railway, has sought for the following reliefs-' "a) To set aside the information dated 16.1.2019 of the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, 1st Appellate Authority i.e Annexure "A- 11" of the O.A case with immediate effect.
*T
b
' ; '•*
: r 2 QzlVilllQVZ
W& ?
'■3^u \'\\Xt -t«'
r-i
b) To direct the. respondent no. 2 to evaluated the computer based i w/ ■ jf ' test/examination dated 29.3.2016 of CEN 03/2015 for the categories of Goods Guard and Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk of the applicant with 4 \{ immediate effect.
]>■ c) To direct the respondent particularly the respondent no. 2 to give R appointment to the applicant if he secured qualifying marks of the computer based test/examination dated 29.3.2016 for the post of Goods Guard and Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk with immediate effect. !6!?
d) To direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to produced the answer scripts •j; of the computer based test/examination dated 29.3.2016 of CEN 03/2015 of the applicant before this Hon'ble Tribunal for proper adjudication of this case.
e) To direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to produce all relevant documents and papers relating to this case before this Hon'ble Tribunal for proper conscionable justice of this case.
1) To pass such other order or orders as to your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
g) Cost."
2. His grievance, broadly is as under* Railway Recruitment Board published a Centralised employment notice no. 03/2015, for Non-Technical Popular Categories (NTPC) (Graduate) on 26.12.2015 and invited online application from the ? • eligible candidates. The applicant made online application for the post of Goods Guards (ER)*(lst priority) and for the post of Enquirycum-
Reservation Clerk (SER)-(2nd priority) and he received e-call letter for a computer based test for the said post to be held on 29.3.2016 (Annexure A'3). He duly appeared in the said test/examination on 29.3.2016.
Thereafter, he received another e-call letter for the computer based test/ examination dated 19.4.2016 (Annexure-A-4). The applicant, in response of the said e-call letter, appeared at the said test on 19,4.2016.
Having received no information regarding the recruitment process, he preferred an application under RTI Act, 2005 on 1.6.2018 seeking status of the examination and recruitment process under CEN 03/2015.
The Public Information Officer i.e Secretary, RRB, Kolkata, vide letter dated 2.7.2018 (Annexure A-7) informed him as follows-
/ 3 oa/781/2019'
Jr
"Information as sought for vide you RTI application is furnished as under:
:W SI. No. information furnished i
1. The recruitment process of CEN. No. 03/2015 has already been completed and panels have also been sent to the Concerned Zonal Railways. You obtained 31.4822 as normalized marks for the post of NTPC (graduate) against CEN. No. 03/2015. As you did not secure the requisite cut-off marks for the post of Goods Guard (as per option exercised by you for the post of ECRC & Goods Guard); you were not called for document verification. It is further informed that there was no post earmarked for ECRC against UR Community.
2. You may refer item 8 to 8.13 of CEN. No. 03/2015 for detail Recruitment Process.
Then the applicant preferred an appeal dated 24.7.2018, followed by reminder dated 4.10.18 before the 1st Appellate Authority to give him J i\ c s j tt Ij / information regarding computer based test dated 29.3.2016 and VriR at0*.
19.4.2016. The 1st Appellate Authority vide letter dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure A* 11), replied as under-
"1. You attended the same examination of CEN-03/2015 twice on 29.03.2016 and 19.04.2016.
2. As per records, on 29.03.2016 you have appeared for above exam with a defective call letter, but you were not scheduled for the exam on 29.03.2016. However, you were allowed to write the exam with a dummy roll number on the same date and shift.
3. Now based on your actual scheduling on 19.04.2016, you have again appeared in the exam for the second time with valid roll no assigned as 22318117452362.
4. Since you have attended the exam twice i.e on 29.03.2016 and again on 19.04.2016 perhaps with maiafide intention, the exam on 19.04.2016 based on official Scheduling was evaluated and exam on 29.03.2016 was ignored and not evaluated.
5. Based on the evaluation of exam held on 19.04.2016, you obtained normalized marks 31.4822 which has already been intimated to you.
With this, your appeal is disposed.
However, you may appeal to Second Appellate Authority, if desire so, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this letter."
Aggrieved, the applicant preferred a 2nd appeal against non consideration of his Computer Based Test Examination which was held on 29th March.
msM/' <1 ' i ''
4
■ i ; '.-
oa/781/2019
? ?
. .r
2016 for the post of Goods Guard (first priority) and Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk (second priority), but the 2nA Appellate Authority, the CIC, returned back the appeal, stating as under:
"Subject:- Return of Second Appeal/Complaint along with ail documents for removal of deficiencies.
Madam/Sir, Reference your Second Appeal/Complaint doted 14.03.2019 received on 19-03- 2019 vide above Diary Number.
2. On scrutiny of the Second Appeal/Complaint, it is seen that the same has the following deficiencies/which are required to be removed.
The Second Appeal/Complaint relates to more than one RTI application. Your 1* % £ 1----i c above mentioned appeal/complaint is therefore returned along with all 2 5 rS documents.
3. A separate Appeal/Complaint relating to each RTI application is required to be re-submitted. You are requested to send Second Appeal/Complaint complete in ail respects.
While sending the Second Appeal/Complaint a copy of this letter may also be enclosed.
Deputy Registrar.(CR-I)"
The applicant preferred a representation on 29.02.2019 before the Chairman, RRB, Kolkata with a prayer to evaluate his computer based test/examination dated 29.03.2016 with immediate effect, having participated at the computer based test/examination held on 29.3.2016 and 19.4.2016, on the basis of e-call letters of the RRB, Kolkata. As such there was no malafide intention on his part to participate at the said computer based test/examination twice. He alleged that at the 1st computer based test held on 29.3.2016 he was not allotted any dummy roll no. nor intimated that the said e-call letter was defective. Therefore the respondents refused to evaluate the computer based test/examination dated 29.03.2016, tried to deprive him of employment;
ji
wwۥ 5 oa/781/2019
y.
In response, the Chairman, RRB replied as under:
"Sub: Appeal for evaluation ofCBT of29.03.2019.
Ref: 1 Your Letter Dated 28.02.2019 received in this office on 08.03.2019.
2. Copy of your appeal to the second appellate authority dated 14.03.2019.
This office is in receipt of your above representation regarding evaluation of CBT of 29.03.2019 and also a copy of your appeal to the second appellate authority. Please note that you have already been informed about the status of evaluation of your CBT of C6N-03/2015 through reply vide letter no. RRB/KOL/RTI/5576/2018/MDE dated 16.01.2019 to your RTI appeal to the first appellate authority. There is nothing to add further in this matter.
(B.K. Dutta) Assistant Secretary For Chairman"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the applicant has preferred this O.A.
3. The respondents, to refute his claim has summarised the factual position, which is as under-
1. Pursuant to CEN-03/2015 l5t Stage Computer based stage (CBT) was held initially during the period from 28.03.2016 to 03.05.2016.
2. After completion of the 1st Stage CBT candidates were provided with the opportunity to view his question and answers and to raise objection if any. In this regard a notification was published on 10.08.2016 in the official website of RRB stating the following:
Important Notice for Candidates of NTPC (Graduate) Exam (CEN 03/2015) Objection Tracker.
Question Papers, Answer Keys and Candidates' Response for the exam will be available on the websites of RRBs from. 00:00 hrs. of 12/08/2016 to . 23:59 hrs. of 19/08/2016. Objections to Question(s) and Key(s) can be raised during above period only. Objections raised by the candidates, if any, will be considered and evaluated before processing of the result. Thereafter, RRBs will hold additional CBT (second stage examination). The date was further extended upto 21.08.2016.
3. Pursuant to item 5.06 of CEN -03/2015 a Registration Number is issued to each :
applicant during submission of online Examination. This Registration No. is unique and an applicant can be identified with such Registration No. only.
4. The applicant Md. Danish Eqbal with Registration No. 2271768117 with roll no. 22318117452362 was originally scheduled for 1st stage computer based test on 19.04.2016 as per record. The applicant Md. Danish Eqbal claimed to r-'7 6 oa/781/2019 • r> j download a call letter for 1st stage Computer Based Test held on 29.03.2016 with a different roll no. with same registration dumber.
5. In this context, it is submitted that a large number of candidates were involved in the recruitment process pursuant to CEN -03/2015. The examination was held pan India basis and for all the RRBs simultaneously. All together 9120491 candidates were called for 1st stage CBT and 489986 candidates were actually for RRB Koikata. On the other hand 740309 candidates were allotted for such examination in the jurisdiction of RRB Koikata. Considering such huge number of candidates, possibility of mistake in conduct of examination cannot be ruled out. Md. Danish Eqbal with Registration No. 2271768117 was allowed to appear in the CBT held-on 29.03.2016 as a dummy candidate with dummy roll no. by the examination conducting centre so that the candidate may not suffer for any error on the part of examination conducting body. However, he was actually scheduled on 19.04.2016 as per record and in which he duly appeared.
6. it is very much important to note that after appearing in Examination on c 29.03.2016 the candidate never contacted RRB/Kolkata either physically or u x/'n\\y I"I n(j . through email or any other correspondence when he came to know about the 2 examination of 19.04.2016 for the same 1st stage CBT with same Registration No. and with a different Roil No. rather he appeared in the said CBT held on 19.04.2016 which was held as per his actual scheduling.
Since as per record, the candidate only appeared as a dummy one on 29.03.2016, the said examination was ignored and only his. examination on scheduled dated, i.e 19.04.2016 was considered.
7. After completion of the 1st stage CBT candidates were provided with the opportunity to view his question and answer and to raise objection if any. In this regard a notification was published on 10.08.2016 in the official website of RRB stating the following:
important Notice for Candidates of NTPC (Graduate) Exam (CEN 03/2015) Objection Tracker.
Question Papers, Answer Keys and Candidates' Response for the exam will be available on the websites of RRBs from 00:00 hrs. of 12/08/2016 to 23:59 hrs. of 19/08/2016. Objections to Question(s) and Key(s) can be raised during above period only. Objections raised by the candidates, if any, will be considered and evaluated before processing of the result. Thereafter, RRBs will hold additional CBT (second stage examination).
The date was further extended upto 21.08.2016.
8. Md. Danish Eqbal with Registration No. 2271768117 was thus given the opportunity to view his Question Papers, Answer Keys and Candidates' Response for the exam along with his examination date of to raise objection.
But the candidate never brought it to the notice of the authority regarding his examination on 29.03.2016.
9. On 30.08.2016 it was further notified to the candidates that in the official website of RRB that the after consideration of the objection, the question papers, 7 :>v:;
^94? 1 oa/781/2019
•v" r
<$
. •? updated final answer keys and candidates response shall he made available in
RRBs website.
10. On 06.12.2016 result of 1st Stage CBT against CEN 03/2015 was published mentioning the Roll Nos of such candidates who were provisionally shortlisted to appear in the 2nd stage CBT. A total of 21123 candidates were shortlisted for 2nd. stage CBT.
11. Result of 2nd stage CBT in conjunction with typing skill test and Aptitude test for document verification was published on 04.08.2017.
12. Document verification process was held between 21.08.2017 to06.10.2017.
13. Finally the selected candidates were empanelled to the indenting Railways.
14. The present applicant waited for the entire period as above and in June, 2018 sought for some information through RIT regarding his marks which was provided to him. A detail reply was also provided to him by the Chairman & 1st /T £ \\ Appellate Authority vide letter dated 16.01.2019. Applicant has enclosed a copy of % a1 p the said letter has been annexed at page 40 of the present O.A. & 'A From the above it is clear that the result of 1st stage CBT was duly published followed by the result of 2nd stage CBT and finally the panel has also been published.
The applicant did not raise any objection regarding the result of his 1st stage CBT mentioning his examination held on 29.03.2016 during the stipulated time as notified. The applicant was provided with ample opportunity to view his examination details including examination date and raise objection during the process of objection Tracker. He could even represent to the authority in the matter before the examination held on 19.04.2016 mentioning his examination of 29.03.2016 as both the examinations were of 1st stage CBT and with different Roll Nos. He could represent before the publication of the result of 1st stage CBT, immediately after the publication of result of 1st stage of CBT and before the 2nd stage CBT, or (c) even before the finalization of the panel. But he'did not turn up and accepted his result After completion of the entire process, the applicant cannot claim now for publication of result of his examination which was actually - ignored due to dummy roll. No. You are requested to submit the above and if required, pray for some time so that proper reply can be filed. Parawise comments will be sent shortly.
Thanking You, Yours faithfully (Shrinibash Sethi) Member Secretary"
■..............-T-.-"
• V y 8 oa/781/2019 ;.
4. Ld. counsels were heard and records were perused,
5. From the records we discern the following:
The RRB notification clearly and explicitly lays down the following-
1. (A) GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 1.01 CANDIDATES SHOULD NOTE THAT:-
(i) Common single stage CBT (Computer Based Test)/Examination for all the notified 09 cancellation of candidature categories is scheduled to be held simultaneously by all participating RRBs tentatively during MARCH- MAY, 2016. Therefore, candidates can submit ONLINE application to any one RRB only.
(ii) For Category 1, 2, 3 & 4, documents verification will be done after common single stage CBT.
(iii) For Category 5, 6 & 9, Typing Skill Test of qualifying nature followed by document verification will be conducted after common single stage CBT.
A
|) iv) For Category 7 & 8, Aptitude Test and verification of documents will be held after
&y common single stage CBT.
1.02 (a) Admission to the common single stage CBT/Typing Skill Test/ Aptitude Test will be purely provisional, subject to candidates satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions.
fb) Mere issue of Call Letter/e-admit card to candidates will NOT imply that their candidature has been finally accepted by the RRB.
c) RRBs conduct verification of eligibility conditions with reference to original documents only after the candidates have qualified in all the stages of examinations. RRBs may reject the applications of candidates at any stage of recruitment process in case the candidates are not fulfilling the requisite criteria, and if appointed, such a candidate(s) is/are liable to be removed from service summarily.
During submission of ONLINE application, a Registration Number will be issued to each applicant. Candidates are advised to preserve/note their Registration Number for further stages of recruitment process / correspondence with RRB concerned.
NOTE-1: ONLINE Applications without photo of candidate, not having requisite fee (if applicable) are liable to be rejected.
NOTE-II: In case the application is rejected, candidates will be able to view their status ONLINE on the website of RRBs concerned along with the reasons for reiection(s). SMS and e-mail alerts shall also be sent to the candidates on their registered mobile number and e-mail ID, as indicated in their ONLINE application. Candidates whose application/candidature is rejected will NOT be intimated by post. Candidates are advised to provide only their own Mobile Number I e-mail ID so that they receive such • - •• communications. Communications with the candidates will be done through SMS & e- mail only.
NOTE-DI: To avoid last minute rush, candidates are advised in their own interest to submit ONLINE application much before the closing date since there may be a possibility of inability/failure to log on to the website of RRB concerned on account of heavy load on the internet or website jam during last days. NOTE-IV: RRBs do not accept any responsibility for the candidates not being able to submit their application within closing date on account of aforesaid reasons or any other reason."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ?
9 oa/781/2019 . ' >?
f. :/ 8.04. Stages of Examination: (a) Common single stage CBT for alt notified categories, (b) FoKowed by verification of documents for Cat. No.-1, 2, 3 & 4 {Commercial Apprentice, Traffic Apprentice, ECRC & Goods Guard) (c) Typing skill test of qualifying nature followed by verification of documents for Cat. No. 5, 6 & 9 (JAA, Sr.Clerk, Sr.Time Keeper). Exemption in Typing Skill Test may be extended to PWD candidates having disability of more than 40%. Such candidates are required to bring typing skill test exemption certificate to the Type Test centre issued by competent medical board as per Annexure-Vlll. (d) Aptitude Test followed by verification of documents for Cat. No. 7 & 8 (ASM & Traffic Assistant (e) Candidates called for Aptitude Test for the post of ASM & Traffic Assistant are required to bring Vision Certificate to Aptitude Test centre from an Eye Specialist on prescribed proforma as per Annexure-IX, failing which they will not be allowed to appear in the Aptitude Test.
8.08. Candidates should read the instructions on the e-call letter carefully and follow them scrupulously. Failure to comply with the instructions may lead to cancellation of their candidature. Mock/Practice tests will also be made available on RRBs website to the candidates to acquire familiarity with the online examination process.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ./ r -i 14.01. The entire Centralised Employment Notice along with all Annexures will also be 2 'a c available on the websites of RRBs.
1 4.02 RRBs reserve the right to reject the candidature of any applicant at any stage of the process of recruitment, if any irregularity I deficiency are noticed in the application.
14.03 RRBs reserve the right to conduct additional examination/document verification at any stage. RRBs also reserve the right to cancel part or whole of any recruitment process at any stage for any of the categories notified in this Centralised Employment Notice without assigning any reason thereof.
14.04 The decision of RRBs in all matters relating to eligibility, acceptance or rejection of......... ONLINE applications, penalty for false information, issue of free Rail Passes, mode of selection, conduct of CBT/ Examination, allotment of examination centers, selection, allotment of posts to selected candidates etc., will be final and binding on the candidates and no enquiry or correspondence will be entertained by the Railway Recruitment Boards in this regard.
14.09. Candidates are advised to visit the websites of RRBs regularly for any change(s) and updation of information/schedule of examination/change in centre of examinations etc.
15. The CBT (Computer Based Test) is tentatively scheduled to be held during MARCH - MAY, 2016 at locations tentative list of which is indicated at Para 16. However, RRBs , reserve the right to change the date of examination without any notice. RRBs also reserve the right to change /delete exam towns based on the response and exigencies and may hold the CBT (Computer Based Test)/ Examinations anywhere in the country and the centres allotted by RRBs will be final and binding.
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CANDIDATE ON E-CALL LETTER PLEASE READ CAREFULLY AND COMPLY.
Xxxxxxxx
20. Mere issue of e-Call letter does not confer any right to be eligible for the post. The candidature is purely provisional and is liable to be cancelled at any stage of recruitment or thereafter, in case any inconsistency Is notice.
21. RRB reserves the right to order re-examination for any or all the candidates.
22. Decision of the RRB in all the matters will be final and binding on the candidates."
I '
-:y
10 oa/781/2019
-y' f
3
(i) In the aforesaid backdrop we feel that the applicant ought to have r i checked his status in the website as directed, he ought to have objected to • holding of 2nd test of 1st stage, at the material time, which he failed to discharge.
(ii) Having appeared at the 2nd test of 1st stage without demur, he is estopped from claiming benefit of the 1st test held on 29.03.2016.
(hi) His second test held on 19.04.2016 was evaluated but he did not come out successful to qualify for the second stage. As an unsuccessful /s A 2 s I) uI candidate of examination held on 19.04.2016 he cannot turn around volte & A face to challenge non-evaluation of the 1st test held on 29.03.2016 where he was erroneously allowed to participate.
6. It is trite law that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful. The present applicant, with open eyes participated at the subsequent test of lsL stage and came out unsuccessful, whereafter he wants consideration in terms of the 1st test that was erroneously held. The law on the right of an unsuccessful candidate to challenge selection process has been has been crystalized in several decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court.
In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or 11 oa/781/2019 r that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable.
In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100, Hon'ble Apex Court succinctly propounded that:
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure (aid down therein were not entitled to question the same...
(See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi 7/ Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission).
The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borroah (2009) 3 SCC 227, lipistr* & where it was held to be well settled that candidates who have taken part sC £ t • m a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
In Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations' "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the ' , .• Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in MadanLal v. State of J. and K. MANU/SC/0208/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 486, MarripatiNagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. MANU/SC/8040/2007 : (2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. MANU/SC/7287/2008 : (2008) 4 SCC 171, AmlanJyotiBorooah v. State of Assam MANU/SC/0077/2009 : (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. (supra)."
In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission (2011) 1 SCC 150, candidates who had participated in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible. V- /} 12 oa/781/2019 In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi (2013) 11 SCC 309 , candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. It was held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection as:
"18. It is settled low that a person who consciously takes partin the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome."
In Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur (2014) 10 SCC 521, it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non*selection.
In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey (2015) 11 SCC 49, it was held that:
"There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted."
This principle has been reiterated in Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam (2016) 1 SCC 454.
Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj (1997) 9 SCC 527, where government was found to have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure, it was held ■t WM 13 oa/781/2019 •-/ k';
that the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence had no application.
7. The applicant has failed to establish that the authorities were bound to evaluate the answer script/paper/examination held on 29.03.2016.
8. Due to the reasons as aforesaid, his claim for evaluation of the test held on 29.03.2016 fails.
OA is therefore dismissed. No costs.
*7
f
(Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Banerjee)
Member (A) Member (J)
ss
*
S
1
\
!
\
l
\
j