Candidate Can Challenge Selection Process After Participating If Arbitrariness Is Writ Large Or Rules Changed Mid-Way: Supreme Court

"Though a candidate for a post cannot ordinarily challenge the process of selection where he has participated without objection, law is well-settled that he can do so in a situation where arbitrariness/illegality in the selection process is writ large," Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated July 24, 2026, held that while candidates who participate in a recruitment process cannot ordinarily challenge it later, this rule of estoppel does not apply when arbitrariness or illegality in the selection process is "writ large."

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that candidates cannot be presumed to have accepted midway changes to the rules of the game that detrimentally affect their selection.

The case stems from the recruitment of Vocational Instructors in Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) by the State of Uttar Pradesh under advertisements issued in 2014 and 2015. The appellants challenged the process after failing to secure appointments, alleging that the State had unlawfully diluted the mandatory requirement of a Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate. The State of U.P. raised a preliminary objection, arguing that since the appellants had applied with full awareness of the qualification criteria and participated in the written examination without objection, they were estopped from challenging the selection process subsequently.

The primary legal question before the court was whether the appellants were barred by the doctrine of estoppel from challenging the recruitment process after having participated in it without raising any initial objections.

General Rule Of Estoppel Upheld

The court initially agreed with the State's objection regarding the challenge to the 2014 Rules and the subsequent advertisements, noting that the objection was fair and tenable. The bench clarified that it did not propose to allow the appellants to broadly raise their voice against the rules since no question was raised by them before participating in the written examination.

Exception For Arbitrariness And Illegality

However, the Supreme Court carved out a crucial exception to the general rule of estoppel in service jurisprudence. The court emphasized that a candidate can challenge a selection process, despite participation, if the procedure is demonstrably vitiated by blatant illegality. The bench reasoned that a candidate agreeing to participate in a selection process can neither expect an illegality to be pressed into service to rule out his candidature, nor can he be said to have accepted such illegality.

"If indeed illegality in the process is demonstrated to have vitiated the process, notwithstanding his participation, the candidate could be granted relief as the situation would warrant and permit."

Arbitrary Imposition Of Cut-Off Marks

Applying this principle, the court examined the state's actions to rule out the possibility of illegality having been committed against the appellants. The bench found that the Selection Committee had superimposed an additional eligibility threshold by arbitrarily fixing qualifying or cut-off marks for the interview, a criterion which found no mention in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules 2014.

Substantial Vacancies Left Unfilled

The court noted that Rule 16(3)(b)(i) only permitted shortlisting candidates to four times the number of vacancies in situations where applications were received in disproportionately large numbers. In this case, the situation was exactly the converse. Despite 2,498 vacancies having been advertised in 2014, offer letters were issued to only about 2,200 candidates, leaving substantial vacancies unfilled solely due to the arbitrary prescription of cut-off marks.

Candidates Cannot Anticipate Mid-Way Rule Changes

The court firmly rejected the State's argument that participation validated the flawed process. The bench reasoned that candidates could not have visualized, prior to the declaration of results, that the authorities would deviate from the established rules of selection and introduce an unprescribed cut-off mark in the guise of screening eligible candidates.

"The rules of the game, mid-way, could not have been changed by the Selection Committee/SoUP to the detriment of a number of candidates."

State Action Vitiated The Selection

The bench concluded that the failure of the Selection Committee to follow the 2014 Rules to the tee could not be validated merely on the ground that the appellants participated in the selection process. The court held that such arbitrary state action was sufficient to consider granting relief to the appellants, without even going into the broader validity of the 2014 Rules themselves.

Finding that arbitrariness in state action had vitiated the selection process and unlawfully excluded the appellants, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The Court directed the appointing authority to consider the eligible appellants for recruitment against existing vacant posts, ordering the creation of supernumerary posts if the number of eligible appellants exceeded the available vacancies.

Date of Decision: 24 July 2026