A candidate cannot challenge shortlisting absent proof of higher merit under published selection criteria.

The respondents issued Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2026 dated 05.06.2026 inviting applications for contractual staff for an Addiction Treatment Facility at District Hospital Ramban, including one post of Counsellor.

The prescribed qualification was graduation in Psychology, Social Work or Sociology, with a Master’s degree in the relevant disciplines being preferable; the age limit was 21–40 years.

The petitioner applied, claiming that she possessed the requisite qualifications.

However, her name was omitted from Notice No. DH/RBN/1637 dated 07.09.2026, which shortlisted candidates for the selection process, including the post of Counsellor.

She challenged the exclusion, alleging that the respondents had not disclosed the shortlisting criteria or reasons for excluding her and that the process favoured “blue-eyed candidates”.

The respondents relied on the selection criteria published in the advertisement and contended that the shortlisted candidates had secured higher marks.

1. Whether the petitioner’s exclusion from the shortlist for the post of Counsellor was arbitrary or unlawful because the criteria, parameters, or basis of shortlisting had not been disclosed.

2. Whether the respondents had lawfully shortlisted candidates in accordance with the selection criteria and the prescribed 1:5 ratio.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring reconsideration of her candidature for the post of Counsellor.

The Court applied the principle that recruitment authorities must follow the selection criteria disclosed in the advertisement and cannot depart from the published criteria during the selection process.

For the post of Counsellor, the advertisement prescribed 80 points for graduation, 10 points for a Master’s degree, and 10 points for viva voce, with the relevant components to be assessed on a pro-rata basis; where screening was conducted, the criteria were 40 points for screening, 40 for graduation, 10 points for a Master’s degree, and 10 points for viva voce.

The advertisement further provided that candidates would be called for viva voce in a 1:5 ratio.

The Court found that the petitioner’s contention that the selection criteria had not been published was contradicted by the advertisement placed on record, which expressly contained the applicable criteria.

Applying those criteria, the respondents assessed the candidates’ marks and shortlisted five candidates who had obtained higher points for the viva voce in accordance with the prescribed 1:5 ratio.

The petitioner neither alleged nor established that she had secured more points than the shortlisted candidates, or that any shortlisted candidate had obtained fewer points than her.

Consequently, the Court found no basis to interfere with the respondents’ shortlisting process or to order reconsideration of the petitioner’s candidature.

Since the selection criteria had been duly published and the respondents had shortlisted candidates according to those criteria and the prescribed ratio, the petitioner was not entitled to reconsideration of her candidature.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.