Awarding Marks Is Selection Committee's Exclusive Domain, Court Can't Sit In Appeal Over Expert Committee's Assessment: Tripura HC Reiterates

The Tripura High Court recently declined to intervene in a selection process where the applicant claimed arbitrariness in the awarding of marks, emphasizing that judicial review in expert assessments is limited unless there is clear evidence of bias, malfeasance, or statutory violations.

The bench comprising Justice Arindam Lodh observed that awarding of marks is an exclusive domain of the selection committee and the Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the assessment made by such expert committee.

This case concerns the validity of the selection process for the post of Assistant Director under the Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Government of Tripura. The petitioner challenges the selection, alleging arbitrariness and unfair evaluation of marks in the viva voce, favoring the selected candidate (Respondent No. 5).

It was the petitioner's case that he scored 100 in API compared to Respondent No. 5's 90. Despite this, the total marks for Respondent No. 5 (90.50) exceeded those of the petitioner (90.00) due to higher viva-voce marks. The petitioner alleged unfairness in awarding viva voce marks but provided no evidence of bias or procedural violations.

However, the petitioner has not pleaded or alleged any bias or favoritism, neither against the Selection Board nor against any of its members. The only allegation which has been averred in the present writ petition is that the petitioner had performed very well in the interview, but, he was not awarded the marks he deserved.

Rejecting such a statement, the court observed as follows:

“This statement cannot be accepted by the Court in absence of any substance or materials that evaluation or assessment of merits of candidates was made erroneously. The assessment and evaluation of the performance in such interview or viva-voce test should be left to the members of the selection panel itself. The Court in exercise of its power of judicial review cannot sit in appeal to arrive at an alternative view other than the view taken by the experts. The members of the Interview Board have sufficient expertise and the evaluation of the candidates appearing before such Board is entirely within the domain of those experts in the panel.”

Reference was drawn to the Supreme Court cases like Madan Lal vs. State of J&K (1995) and Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs. State of J&K (2023), where it was held that the courts should not act as appellate bodies over expert committees' decisions unless procedural flaws or malfeasance are evident.

“In the light of the above discussion on facts and law and for the reasons recorded here-in-above, I find no merit in the present writ petition calling for interference with the selection of the respondent no.5 and her recommendation for appointment to the post of Assistant Director by the TPSC.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anthony Debbarma, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate Mr. D. Saha, Advocate

Case Title: Shri Subrata Debbarma (Maj. Retd) vs. State of Tripura & Ors. WP(C) No.158 of 2024

Click here to read/download the judgment