High Score in Written Test Does Not Confer Enforceable Right to Selection Over Aggregate Merit

The Petitioner, an engineering student at DTU, challenged the selection process conducted by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) for the post of Probationary Engineer (2017-18).

The Petitioner appeared for a written test and interview. Despite scoring high in the written test, he was not selected.

Through RTI queries, he received two purportedly contradictory scores: 43.56/85 and 30.75/60 for the same written test.

The Petitioner alleged that the selection was arbitrary, lacked transparency, and that interview marks were used to favor other candidates.

BEL contended that 30.75/60 was the raw score, which was mathematically converted to 43.56/85 as per policy.

BEL further noted that the Petitioner failed to meet the minimum qualifying threshold (35%) in the interview, securing only 4/15 marks.

1. Whether the inconsistency in RTI replies regarding written-test marks invalidated the selection process

2. Whether the Petitioner had a right to selection based solely on securing the highest marks in the written test

3. Whether the award of low interview marks was arbitrary, mala fide, or legally unsustainable

4. Whether the relief could be granted without impleading selected candidates after the process was complete

The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint in recruitment matters, established in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, stating courts should not sit as appellate selection committees or substitute expert assessments with their own.

It relied on M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC and Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh to affirm that recommendations of selection committees are immune to challenge except on grounds of mala fides or statutory violations.

Regarding interview weightage, the court followed Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, holding that relative weightage depends on the nature of service and is not for courts to redetermine unless marks are "exaggerated" for oblique motives.

Applied Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., which mandates the impleading of necessary parties (selected candidates) whose interests would be affected by the judgment.

The Court found the RTI discrepancies were purely mathematical; converting 30.75/60 to a scale of 85 yields 43.56, thus no actual inconsistency existed.

The Court reasoned that non-disclosure of the conversion formula beforehand does not equate to prejudice or manipulation.

Regarding the interview, the Court observed that 15% weightage is not excessive or constitutionally suspect.

It rejected the plea of mala fides, noting that the Petitioner failed to implead the interview board members or provide evidence of personal bias.

The Court highlighted that the Petitioner’s failure was due to not meeting the mandatory 35% qualifying interview threshold (5.25 marks), regardless of his written score.

The Petitioner's delay in filing (May 2019 for an October 2018 joining) and the failure to implead selected candidates were deemed fatal to the petition.

High written scores do not confer a right to appointment and administrative confusion in RTI replies does not constitute illegality.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the Petitioner.