After Attending Interview, Candidates Can't Challenge It Merely Because They Feel More Marks Should've Been Given : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on March 28 upheld the 2009 selection process and appointment of drug inspectors by Jammu and Kashmir (J&K)Subordinate Services Selection and Recruitment Board (the Board).The bench of Justice K.M Joseph and Justice B.V.Nagarathna said, “The criteria for evaluation of a candidate’s performance in an interview may be diverse and some of it may be subjective....
The Supreme Court on March 28 upheld the 2009 selection process and appointment of drug inspectors by Jammu and Kashmir (J&K)Subordinate Services Selection and Recruitment Board (the Board).
The bench of Justice K.M Joseph and Justice B.V.Nagarathna said, “The criteria for evaluation of a candidate’s performance in an interview may be diverse and some of it may be subjective. However, having submitted to the interview process with no demur or protest, the same cannot be challenged subsequently simply because the candidate’s personal evaluation of his performance was higher than the marks awarded by the panel.”
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging judgment and orders of the J&K High Court that quashed the appointments. The appointments had been previously invalidated by a single judge of the High Court of J&K in a judgment and order dated December 18, 2015. This judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in an impugned judgment dated October 29, 2021.
Background of the case
In May 2008, the Selection Board invited applications for 72 drug inspector positions. The selection list, published in September 2009, recommended candidates for appointment to the Drug and Food Control Organisation of J&K.
Some candidates who could not qualify the selection process filed Writ Petition before the J&K High Court at Jammu, with a prayer to quash the selection of 56 out of the total number selected candidates and direct the authorities to instead select and appoint the writ petitioners as drug inspectors.
The selection was challenged on the various grounds including that the candidates who had a postgraduate degree had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva-voce, such PG candidates had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20. That although the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process.
The writ petition was allowed on the ground that the Selection Board while making the selection had given extra weightage to some of the candidates when such candidates did not have postgraduate degrees in Pharmacy/Medicine to their credit and therefore, they did not deserve to be given extra weightage.
One of the directions issued by the Single Judge in the Writ Petitions was to retain the successful candidates but, at the same time, to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment in the available posts. But if it was not possible to accommodate the petitioners, owing to non-availability of posts, then the entire selection was quashed and set aside and a fresh Selection Committee was to be constituted to conduct fresh interviews of all the candidates. Further, till the said exercise was to be carried out, the selected candidates were allowed to continue the service.
Thereafter the Division Bench, however, quashed the Selection List in its entirety and directed that no further appointments could be made against the vacancies that may have occurred subsequent to the appointments already made and that a fresh selection was to be made by re-advertising the posts.
Aggrieved by the common impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar dated 29th October, 2021, the appeal was filed before Supreme Court by various stakeholders including the selected candidates and Selection Board.
Arguments of the parties
The counsel for one of the Appellants submitted that Single bench order of setting aside the entire selection of the appellants on the ground that the prescribed procedure was not followed and that the selections made by the Selection Committee were doubtful, is erroneous and contrary to law.
Reliance was placed on Reserve Bank of India vs. C.L. Toora, (2004) 4 SCC 657, to contend that where no procedure is prescribed for a Selection Committee, it can formulate its own procedure which is reasonable and not arbitrary in nature.
It was contended that the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the choice of candidates/selection process under Article 226. The reference for the same was made to Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486.
It was also submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside and quashing the Select List published by the selection board on 8th September, 2009.The selection list was correct as the same was published by the Board after following lawful procedure and that the selection list has attained finality by efflux of time.
On the other hand the Respondents herein-writ petitioners before the High Court, supported the impugned judgments of the High Court and submitted that the same do not warrant any interference by Supreme Court as the judgments were passed based on an unimpeachable appreciation of the law and facts.
Analysis by the Court
After hearing both the parties the Apex Court said that, Courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process.
Further the court said, “It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a selection board”.
The court referred to Om Prakash Poplai and Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 117 to explain that, “Courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva-voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee”.
The Court further said that simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process.
Referring to Kumari Anamica Mishra vs. UP Public Service Commission, Allahabad, AIR 1990 SC 461 the Court said, “ The case is therefore representative of a situation where the cancellation of the entire recruitment process was held to be not justified since there was no systemic flaw in the written test, and the issue was only with regard to award of marks to the candidates in the interview. The situation could have been remedied by setting aside the selection made after the interview stage and calling for a fresh interview of all eligible candidates if the case so warranted which is also not so in the instant case.”
The Court held that, In light of the pertinent selection procedure that was followed, “we are unable to hold that the same was mechanical or casual or suffered from irregularities which were so grave or arbitrary in nature so as to justify quashing the entire selection process”.
The court further explained that, “The criteria for evaluation of a candidate’s performance in an interview may be diverse and some of it may be subjective. However, having submitted to the interview process with no demur or protest, the same cannot be challenged subsequently simply because the candidate’s personal evaluation of his performance was higher than the marks awarded by the panel.”
In light of the above the Supreme Court set aside the orders and judgements of the High Court.
The candidates who were declared successful in the 2009 selection process and appointed as drug inspectors in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, with the appointments published on November 12, 2009, were allowed to continue in their positions due to a stay of the impugned judgment.
Case Title- Tanvir Singh and ors. v. The State of J&K& ors.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw 253
Service Law - Challenge to selection process- The criteria for evaluation of a candidate’s performance in an interview may be diverse and some of it may be subjective. However, having submitted to the interview process with no demur or protest, the same cannot be challenged subsequently simply because the candidate’s personal evaluation of his performance was higher than the marks awarded by the panel-simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process.