Assistant Engineer Aspirants Who Knew Selection Was 100% Interview-Based Cannot Challenge It After Losing: Himachal Pradesh HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether candidates who participated in the selection process without objection could challenge, after their non-selection, the advertised criterion that final selection would rest solely on interview marks.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioners, holding that their participation without protest barred their later challenge to the disclosed selection criterion, and found no established illegality in the Commission’s adherence to that criterion.

It also directed

The petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs; pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioners applied for Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-I posts advertised by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Commission).

pp. 2–8

The advertisement stated that, where a screening test was held to shortlist candidates, final selection would be based solely on a viva-voce carrying 100 marks.

pp. 2–8

After qualifying the screening test, the petitioners appeared for interview but were not selected.

pp. 2–8

They challenged the interview process, contending that allocating all selection marks to an interview without a prescribed mark-wise breakdown was arbitrary and contrary to Supreme Court precedent.

pp. 2–8

The Commission and other respondents opposed the petition, relying in part on the petitioners’ participation in the process without objection.

pp. 2–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether candidates who participated in the selection process without objection could challenge, after their non-selection, the advertised criterion that final selection would rest solely on interview marks.

pp. 10–16

ii.2. Whether selection based solely on a 100-mark interview, without a further breakdown of those marks, was unlawful in the circumstances of this case.

pp. 3–5, 10–17

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle of waiver and acquiescence: a candidate who knowingly participates in a selection process without demur or protest ordinarily cannot challenge its criteria after being unsuccessful.

pp. 11–16

It relied on Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2023) 17 SCC 147, and the Division Bench decision in Ashu Jethi (Phull) v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2010 SCC OnLine HP 88, as well as the authorities cited concerning participation in selection processes.

pp. 11–16

The Court also considered Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab, (1991) 1 SCC 662, and The Director General, Indian Council for Agricultural Research v. D. Sundara Raju, (2011) 6 SCC 605, which the petitioners invoked against interview-only selection, and Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar, (2019) 20 SCC 17, on the distinction between accepting a procedure and accepting illegality in its implementation.

pp. 11–14

The governing advertisement expressly provided for shortlisting by screening test and final selection solely on interview performance, with a maximum of 100 marks.

pp. 9–11

04Reasoning

The Court found that the advertisement clearly disclosed, before the petitioners applied, that the screening test would serve only to shortlist candidates and that final merit would be determined by interview marks.

pp. 12–17, 20

The petitioners participated in both stages without objection and challenged the criterion only after they were unsuccessful.

pp. 12–17, 20

The Court therefore held that they could not subsequently contest the advertised selection basis.

pp. 12–17, 20

It distinguished Meeta Sahai on the ground that the Commission had followed the procedure stated in the advertisement and no separate illegality in the conduct of the selection was established.

pp. 12–17, 20