Courts Cannot Intervene in Selection Process Based on Conjecture:  Kerala High Court Dismisses Challenge to Anganwadi Helper Appointment

“Judicial Review Cannot Be Invoked to Substitute the Discretion of Selection Committees Unless Process Is Patently Arbitrary or Mala Fide” —  In a clear reaffirmation of the legal boundaries governing judicial review of recruitment processes, the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by a candidate who unsuccessfully challenged the selection of Anganwadi Helpers, holding that mere allegations of irregularity, without documentary support or impleadment of selected candidates, are insufficient to vitiate a duly conducted selection process.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2025, upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2942 of 2024, which had declined to interfere with the recruitment conducted by the Kerala State Women and Children Welfare Department.

“The allocation of marks in an interview is a matter within the discretion of the Selection Committee. Courts cannot substitute their opinion unless the process is found to be palpably arbitrary or mala fide.” [Para 6.1]

“No Selected Candidate Was Impleaded — Relief Cannot Be Granted Behind Their Backs” — Court Stresses Fundamental Principle of Natural Justice

The appellant, Sheeja Jaganathan, approached the High Court with a grievance that she was wrongfully denied marks for her experience, and that ineligible candidates were chosen over more deserving ones. However, a critical procedural lapse doomed her challenge — she failed to implead any of the selected candidates.

The Court found this omission fatal: “In such a situation, the prayer made in the writ petition to cancel the appointment of the selected candidates, without impleading them as parties to the petition and without giving them an opportunity of hearing, cannot be granted.” [Para 6]

This settled principle of law — that no one should suffer an adverse order without being heard — rendered the relief prayed for in the writ petition fundamentally untenable.

“Bald Allegations Do Not Constitute Grounds for Judicial Interference” — Court Finds No Proof of Bias or Mala Fide

The appellant contended that the Selection Committee acted with bias, denied her marks for experience and economic status, and favoured other candidates in an arbitrary manner. However, she failed to produce the relevant certificates before the Selection Committee, and relied on post-facto documents in the court proceedings.

The Bench rejected these arguments:

“Only general allegations have been levelled, and those allegations cannot be treated as material irregularities to set aside the selection.” [Para 6.1]

“The appellant was unable to point out any mala fides or procedural irregularity in the selection process. The petition was preferred on the basis of conjectures and surmises.” [Para 3]

The Court emphasized that judicial review of interview-based selections is limited, and that the discretion of selection authorities cannot be substituted by courts unless it is shown to have been exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or vindictive manner.

“Failure to Challenge Rank List Weakens Claim” — Appellant Did Not Object to Selection List When Published

The appellant was ranked 14th in the selection list, which she did not challenge at the time of its publication. Her inaction at that stage further weakened her claim.

The Court observed:

“Although the rank list was published, the appellant never challenged it. The Selection Committee awarded marks based on the papers submitted. Courts will not second-guess this discretion without compelling reason.” [Paras 6, 6.1]

No Interference Warranted in Discretion of Selection Committee Absent Substantiated Grounds

Upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench concluded:

“We find no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.” [Concluding Para]

The ruling reinforces the judicial principle that selection processes conducted by competent authorities, following prescribed rules, are entitled to deference, and courts must refrain from interference unless there is demonstrable arbitrariness, bias, or illegality.

Date of Decision: 27 October 2025