A candidate who participates without objection cannot later challenge the selection procedure.

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker at Atigaon Anganwadi Centre under the Kathiatoli ICDS Project in 1996.

Pursuant to the State’s decision to fill 25% of Supervisor posts by promotion from eligible Anganwadi Workers, the Director of Social Welfare initiated a selection process in 2014 for HSLC-qualified Anganwadi Workers having ten years’ continuous service, comprising a written examination and viva voce, a procedure approved by the Government of Assam.

The petitioner participated in both stages and secured 41 marks in the written examination and 8.66 marks in the viva voce, totaling 49.66 marks.

She was placed at Serial No. 891 on the merit list, whereas 284 candidates were selected and promoted.

She challenged the selection, alleging that the earlier guidelines dated 04.06.2012, which emphasized interview and length of service, ought to have been followed; that a cut-off mark of 50.33 for Scheduled Caste candidates was impermissibly introduced; and that reservation norms were not properly applied.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had participated without objection, was outside the zone of consideration, and had not impleaded the selected candidates whose appointments would be affected.

During the proceedings, the Court also considered fresh guidelines dated 20.02.2024 for future recruitment against the 25% quota.

Whether the 2014 selection process was invalid because it followed a written examination and viva voce instead of the procedure contemplated by the guidelines dated 04.06.2012.

Whether the alleged cut-off marks, including 50.33 marks for Scheduled Caste candidates, were introduced retrospectively and unlawfully after commencement of the selection process.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment or interference with the selection and promotion of the 284 selected candidates despite not impleading them as respondents.

Whether the respondents should be directed to initiate a fresh recruitment process under the guidelines dated 20.02.2024, thereby providing the petitioner an opportunity to participate.

The Court applied the principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process without objection cannot ordinarily challenge the prescribed procedure after an unsuccessful result, particularly where the procedure was approved by the competent Government authority.

It further applied the merit-based selection principle that, where promotion is to be made through a competitive selection, seniority in the feeder cadre does not confer an automatic right to promotion and a junior may rank higher on securing superior marks.

The Court treated the stated “cut-off marks” as the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in each category, rather than as an eligibility criterion introduced after commencement of the process.

It also applied the rule that selected candidates whose appointments may be adversely affected are necessary parties, and their selection and appointments cannot ordinarily be set aside in their absence.

The Court additionally recognized the obligation of the authorities to expeditiously implement the operative recruitment guidelines and not cause prejudice to eligible Anganwadi Workers through administrative delay.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court held that the 2014 process was governed by the procedure contained in the Director’s communication dated 08.08.2014, which had been approved by the Government on 30.09.2014 and expressly contemplated a written examination followed by viva voce.

Since the petitioner applied, accepted an admit card, and participated in both stages without protest, she could not subsequently challenge the process on the ground that the 2012 guidelines should have been applied.

Her score of 49.66 and merit position of 891 placed her outside the zone of consideration for 284 posts; therefore, the selection of allegedly junior Anganwadi Workers on the basis of higher marks did not amount to unlawful supersession.

The Court also rejected the challenge to the cut-off, finding that 50.33 represented the score of the last selected Scheduled Caste candidate and was not a newly imposed eligibility threshold.

In any event, the selected candidates had not been impleaded, all 284 posts had been filled, and no remaining vacancy within the 25% quota or entitlement of the petitioner was established; hence, no effective appointment or adverse order against those candidates could be made.

However, because the fresh 20.02.2024 guidelines had not yet been implemented and the delay prejudiced eligible in-service Anganwadi Workers, the Court directed an expeditious fresh recruitment process.

The Court found no error in the selection and promotion of the 284 candidates and declined relief against them, particularly because they had not been impleaded.

Nevertheless, the Director was directed to expeditiously initiate recruitment under the guidelines dated 20.02.2024, or any subsequent applicable guidelines, so that the petitioner could have her candidature considered in the fresh process, subject to fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility conditions.

There was no order as to costs.