Candidates who participate without objection cannot later challenge the selection process after an adverse result.

The petitioners challenged the Select List dated 21 November 2025 for recruitment to the posts of Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor and Assistant Public Prosecutor under the Assam State Prosecution Service Rules, 2023.

They also questioned the selection methodology, including the viva-voce process, marking scheme, non-retention of documents produced by candidates, and the eligibility of certain selected candidates.

The State advertised 299 posts—26 Public Prosecutors, 88 Additional Public Prosecutors and 185 Assistant Public Prosecutors. Of 5,238 applications, 4,659 candidates were issued call letters and 2,390 appeared for the viva-voce test.

Three Selection Boards were constituted under amended Rule 15, and they jointly formulated a proficiency-cum-skill viva-voce test carrying 100 marks: 70 marks for professional and analytical skills, 20 for personality and temperament, and 10 for academic performance.

The viva-voce tests were conducted between August 2024 and April 2025. The Boards prepared a consolidated merit and recommended list on 21 June 2025, and the Select List was published on 21 November 2025.

The petitioners, having participated in the selection process, filed the writ petition on 7 January 2026 after their names were not included in the Select List.

Appointment orders were subsequently issued to 241 candidates on 15 March 2026.

Whether the petitioners, having participated in the selection process without objection and having challenged it only after being unsuccessful, had the locus standi to assail the selection process.

Whether the selection process and Select List dated 21 November 2025 were illegal, arbitrary, non-transparent or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Rules 5, 7, 15 and 19 of the Assam State Prosecution Service Rules, 2023.

Rule 19(ii) authorised the Selection Board to devise a proficiency-cum-skill viva-voce test for assessing drafting, analytical and presentation skills, mental agility, grasp of arguments and knowledge of judicial precedent; Rule 19(iv) required a true and faithful record of the Board’s proceedings.

The Court held that the notification dated 20 June 2024, issued under Article 162 of the Constitution, validly empowered the Selection Boards to devise the methodology.

It relied on Madan Lal v. State of J&K, Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh, Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Karnati Ravi v. Commissioner, Mohd. Mustafa v. Union of India and Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J&K for the principle that an unsuccessful candidate who participates without protest generally cannot challenge the selection after the result is adverse.

The recognised exceptions include selection contrary to statutory rules, application of undisclosed or altered criteria, and apparent illegality or mala fides; the Court also considered Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj, Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar, Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur and Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar.

Judicial review of selection processes is limited: courts cannot substitute their assessment for that of an expert Selection Board absent proven mala fides, statutory violation or inherent arbitrariness, as held in Sadananda Halo and Tajvir Singh Sodhi.

The Court held that the petitioners were aware of Rule 19(ii), the notification constituting the Boards, and the viva-voce instructions before participating.

Petitioners 1 and 2 appeared for two categories and Petitioner 3 appeared for three categories, yet none objected to the methodology, marking scheme or requirement to produce professional documents before the results were declared. Petitioner 4 did not even appear for the viva-voce.

The Court therefore applied the rule against approbation and reprobation and found that the petitioners’ challenge was an attempt to question the process only after an adverse result.

On merits, the Court found that the Boards had statutory and administrative authority to devise the viva-voce method.

The marking scheme was uniformly applied to all candidates and was consistent with the broad criteria in Rule 19(ii); it did not amount to an impermissible alteration of the rules of the game.

The non-retention of the applications, petitions, appeals and judgments produced by candidates did not vitiate the process because those materials were used only to frame questions and assess the candidates’ responses, while the assessment records and marks were maintained.

The Court further held that the allegation concerning candidates appointed to Foreigners Tribunals did not establish ineligibility under Clause 8(iv) of the advertisement, which required a self-declaration concerning continued legal practice and did not itself prescribe an additional eligibility condition.

No mala fides, discriminatory treatment, violation of the statutory rules, or inherent arbitrariness was established.

It also answered the second issue against them, holding that the selection process and Select List dated 21 November 2025 did not violate Articles 14 or 16 and were not contrary to the Assam State Prosecution Service Rules, 2023.

The writ petition was dismissed for want of merit, with no order as to costs.