-
by sayum
30 July 2026 3:52 PM
Supreme Court, in a recent Judgement TAJVIR SINGH SODHI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS, held that candidates who participated in the selection process without protest cannot challenge the process subsequently. The Court noted that the writ petitioners in this case willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been recast and their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. Further held that the challenge raised by the writ petitioners after being declared unsuccessful in the selection process ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence, except in cases of mala fides on the part of the Selection Board, which did not exist in this case.
Background
Appeals concern the selection process for appointment of drug inspectors in Jammu and Kashmir in 2009, and the subsequent appointments. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir quashed the selection and appointments, which were challenged by the appellants in these appeals. The selection process was challenged on the grounds that the prescribed qualifications for the post of drug inspector were acquired from universities not affiliated with the Pharmacy Council of India, and that the selection committee was not legally sustainable due to the absence of the Chairman of the Board and an expert member in the interview committee. The selection process was also challenged for allegedly being arbitrary. Several writ petitions were filed by unsuccessful candidates on these grounds.
The High Court in Srinagar allowed three writ petitions challenging the selection process for drug inspectors, finding irregularities in the selection procedure. The Court found that an expert on the selection board had sufficient knowledge of pharmacy, but the award rolls were not signed by the members of the Selection Committee and extra weightage had been granted to some candidates without evidence of their postgraduate degrees. The Court directed the Board to conduct fresh interviews of all candidates, sign the award rolls, and follow prescribed procedures. The Court also directed the authorities to consider appointing the unsuccessful candidates against clear vacancies. Nine Letters Patent Appeals were filed against the Single Judge's decision, and the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's findings on merits and modified some of the directions. The Division Bench found that the appointment of the petitioners should be made and that the selection process did not conform to the prescribed procedure. The Court also held that all subsequent vacancies are to be filled up from the open market afresh, and no further appointments can be made on the basis of the earlier selection against clear vacancies that may have occurred subsequently.
Observed and Held
The Supreme Court observed that generally, courts in India avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognizing the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion, and it is not appropriate for courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. The courts can interfere with the decision of the selection committee only on limited grounds, such as illegality, patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection. 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. Thus, the Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process. The grounds raised by the writ petitioners based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the selection board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates would not hold any water.
Supreme Court considered the argument made by the writ petitioners that the entire selection process was vitiated due to the recasting of the eligibility criteria without any justifiable reason. The Court held that candidates who participated in the selection process without protest cannot challenge the process subsequently. The Court noted that the writ petitioners in this case willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been recast and their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. The Court held that the challenge raised by the writ petitioners after being declared unsuccessful in the selection process ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence, except in cases of mala fides on the part of the Selection Board, which did not exist in this case.
The Supreme Court notes that the selection process adopted in the instant case was governed by the 1992 Rules made by the General Administration Department of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court observes that the selection procedure followed was not mechanical or casual or suffered from irregularities that were so grave or arbitrary in nature so as to justify quashing the entire selection process. The requirement of individual rolls being signed and verified by the members of the Selection Board was not traced to any statute or rule. Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot sustain the finding of the High Court that the entire selection process was vitiated by such irregularity. The High Court was not justified in quashing and setting aside the entire selection process, more so when sixty-four candidates, including the appellants, had been serving on the said post for over a decade.
The court also upheld the legitimacy of conducting interviews as part of a selection process, even where the marks allocated for the interview were found to be excessive. 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 without protest, the candidate cannot challenge the same subsequently merely because the candidate's personal evaluation of their performance was higher than the marks awarded by the panel.
The court further found that the allocation of marks was recast based on the educational qualification of the candidates with a view to incentivize more qualified persons who had applied for the said posts. The reallocation of marks based on educational qualification was in recognition of the higher qualification of the candidates and cannot be termed arbitrary. The court quashed the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench to retain the successful candidates but consider the case of the writ petitioners for appointment in the available posts. Instead, the court allowed the candidates who were declared successful in the selection process conducted on 8th September 2009, for appointment of drug inspectors in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and the appointments published on 12th November 2009, to continue in service by virtue of the stay of the impugned judgment. The court set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench and allowed the present appeals.
TAJVIR SINGH SODHI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS
