Court Cannot Reassess Merit Scores or Expert Evaluations in Selection Processes Absent Proven Mala Fides or Perversity.

The applicant, possessing a postgraduate degree in ENT, participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (Oto-Rhino-Laryngology) at GMC Kathua, advertised via Notification No. 01-PSC (DR-P) of 2018.

Following the interview process, the J&K Public Service Commission (PSC) issued a merit list where the private respondent (Respondent No. 4) secured 68.61 marks and was selected, while the applicant secured 66.86 marks.

The applicant challenged the selection on three grounds: (i) Respondent No. 4 was interviewed on 16.11.2018 despite being scheduled for 15.11.2018; (ii) the applicant was wrongly denied marks for one publication (claimed as an original research paper) and two national paper presentations; and (iii) Respondent No. 4 was allegedly awarded excessive marks for publications through record manipulation.

1. Whether the J&K PSC acted arbitrarily or illegally by permitting Respondent No. 4 to appear for an interview on a date other than her scheduled slot.

2. Whether the Tribunal can interfere with and reassess the expert selection committee's evaluation regarding the admissibility of publications and paper presentations.

3. Whether the allegations of record manipulation (cuttings/interpolation) in the private respondent’s check-sheet were substantiated enough to vitiate the selection.

The Tribunal relied on the principle that judicial review of academic selections is restricted; Courts/Tribunals cannot sit as appellate authorities over expert bodies unless there is proof of mala fides, patent perversity, or violation of statutory rules.

It strictly applied Rule 51 of the J&K Public Service Commission Rules, 1980, which defines the criteria for "original research papers" as opposed to "review articles".

Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of "acquiescence/estoppel," noting that a candidate who participates in a selection process without objection is generally precluded from challenging it after being declared unsuccessful.

The Tribunal found that the PSC was within its rights to permit Respondent No. 4 to interview on the second day (16.11.2018) because the process was still ongoing and she had provided a valid medical reason for her displacement.

Regarding the marks for publications, the Tribunal noted that the experts correctly excluded one of the applicant's papers because it was a "review article" rather than an "original research paper" required by the rules.

It dismissed the claim for paper presentation marks because the applicant's own signed check-sheet proved such certificates were never produced during the interview.

Finally, the Tribunal held that mere corrections or "cuttings" in administrative records do not equate to illegal interpolation; the applicant failed to provide cogent evidence that the experts acted with mala fide intent or that the final score did not reflect the verified record.

The Tribunal concluded that it cannot engage in a "hypothetical recalculation of marks" or substitute its wisdom for that of the expert committee. Consequently, the Transfer Application (TA) was dismissed for being devoid of merit.