Candidates who participate without protest cannot challenge selection criteria after becoming unsuccessful.

The applicants, employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, applied under Advertisement No. 07 dated 29 July 2013 for PGT posts in English and Economics under the OBC category.

They qualified in the written examination and appeared before the interview board but were not included in the final result declared on 15 September 2014.

They alleged arbitrariness, mala fides and manipulation in the interview process, including the use of pencil for recording marks, failure to conduct videography and demo training, and excessive weightage of 30% for the interview as against 70% for the written examination.

They sought quashing of the entire selection process and a fresh examination/interview.

The respondents denied any irregularity and contended that the applicants had participated in the selection without protest, failed to obtain the cut-off marks, and could not challenge the process merely because they were unsuccessful.

1. Whether the applicants, having participated in the selection process without objection, could subsequently challenge the prescribed 70:30 ratio between written examination and interview after being unsuccessful

2. Whether the applicants’ allegation that the interview board used pencil and manipulated interview marks established mala fides, arbitrariness or illegality warranting judicial interference

3. Whether lower marks awarded in the interview, despite comparatively higher written-examination marks, justified interference with the assessment of the expert interview board

4. Whether non-compliance with directions concerning videography of interviews and demo training invalidated the entire selection process

The Tribunal applied the principle that courts exercising judicial review do not sit in appeal over the subjective assessment of an expert selection committee and may interfere only where there are proven allegations of mala fides, malfeasance, statutory violations or inherent arbitrariness, relying on Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir.

It applied the doctrine of waiver, acquiescence and approbation and reprobation, under which a candidate who participates in a selection process with knowledge of its conditions cannot challenge those conditions only after being declared unsuccessful, relying on Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom, Dr. G. Sarna v. University of Lucknow, Madan Lal v. State of J&K, and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi.

The Tribunal further relied on Durga Devi v. State of H.P. for the rule that a court or tribunal cannot reassess comparative merit or suitability as an appellate authority over the selection committee.

On interview weightage, it relied on Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin, Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan, and Manish Kumar Shahi, holding that there is no universal permissible percentage for interview marks; the weightage depends on the nature of the service and cannot be invalidated absent proven arbitrariness or mala fide intent.

The applicants knowingly participated in the written examination and interview without challenging the 70:30 selection criteria at the relevant stage. The Tribunal therefore held that their subsequent challenge, raised only after failure to secure selection, was barred by waiver and acquiescence.

The allegation that the interview board used pencil did not, by itself, prove that marks were subsequently altered or manipulated; no concrete evidence of manipulation, discrimination or mala fides was produced.

The Tribunal treated the allocation of interview marks as falling within the domain of the expert interview board and rejected the assumption that higher written marks necessarily entitled a candidate to higher interview marks.

It further held that the directions regarding videography and demo training were directory, and their alleged non-compliance, without proof of prejudice, mala fides or manipulation, did not invalidate an otherwise fair selection process.

The Tribunal also noted that the selected candidates, who could be affected by the relief sought, had not been impleaded as respondents.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit, all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.