Low interview scores alone insufficient to prove selection arbitrariness.

The applicant, Nisha, applied for the post of TGT (Physical & Health Education) under the OBC category pursuant to Advertisement No. 15/2022 issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS).

She secured 153 marks in the written examination conducted in February 2023, exceeding the cut-off of 100 marks for her category.

The applicant was shortlisted and appeared for an interview on May 27, 2023.

However, her name was not included in the provisional list of selected candidates published on November 28, 2023.

Through an RTI application dated December 19, 2023, the applicant sought information regarding her interview marks.

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), which conducted the written exam and facilitated the interview process, revealed that the applicant secured 153 marks in the written test and only 8 marks in the interview.

The selection process had a pre-declared weightage of 70% for the written test and 30% for professional competency (including interview).

The written examination marks were not disclosed to KVS or the interview board prior to the interviews.

The final merit list was prepared by CBSE based on aggregate marks.

Whether the non-selection of the applicant, despite securing high marks in the written examination, due to low interview marks, reflects arbitrariness or a violation of principles of natural justice?

Whether the selection process adopted by the respondents was in adherence to the pre-declared criteria and free from procedural irregularities or bias?

The court applied principles relating to the scope of judicial review in selection matters, emphasizing that interference is warranted only in cases of *mala fide*, manifest arbitrariness, violation of statutory rules, or where mark allocation violates prescribed norms.

It reiterated that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness, but such arbitrariness must be demonstrable and not merely inferred from an adverse outcome, citing *Ajay Hasia Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 722*.

The court also referred to the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as clarified in *Union of India Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 499*, stating that it cannot by itself confer an enforceable right unless the denial is arbitrary or violative of established administrative law principles.

Furthermore, relying on *Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy Ors., (2011) 9 SCC 286*, it noted that Article 14 strikes at arbitrary actions, which in turn negate equality.

The court found that the selection process prescribed a pre-declared weightage of 70% for the written examination and 30% for the Professional Competency Test (including interview), which the applicant participated in with full knowledge.

The court noted that mere inclusion in a select list or high marks in the written exam does not confer an enforceable right to selection, as the interview performance is an integral part of the composite assessment.

While the applicant received low interview marks, the court observed that other candidates also received lower scores, suggesting the marks fell within a permissible assessment framework.

Crucially, the written examination marks were not disclosed to KVS or the Interview Board prior to interviews, ruling out potential prejudice based on prior performance knowledge.

Interview marks were uploaded digitally on the same day without modification, and CBSE prepared the final merit list based on aggregate marks.

The court concluded that no material was placed on record to establish bias, procedural irregularity, or *mala fide* intention in the interview process.

It distinguished the applicant's case from instances of demonstrable arbitrariness or violations of legitimate expectation, emphasizing that such claims require concrete evidence beyond an adverse outcome.

The O.A. was dismissed, being devoid of any merit.

The court held that the respondents conducted the selection process in accordance with the pre-notified scheme, which was uniformly applicable to all candidates and not contrary to any statutory rule.

The court found no proof of procedural irregularity or violation of rules in the selection process, concluding that mere low marks in the interview, without supporting evidence of unfairness, were insufficient grounds for intervention.

The interim order dated February 20, 2024, was vacated.

Whether the non-selection of the applicant, despite securing high marks in the written examination, due to low interview marks, reflects arbitrariness or a violation of principles of natural justice?

Whether the selection process adopted by the respondents was in adherence to the pre-declared criteria and free from procedural irregularities or bias?

The court applied principles relating to the scope of judicial review in selection matters, emphasizing that interference is warranted only in cases of *mala fide*, manifest arbitrariness, violation of statutory rules, or where mark allocation violates prescribed norms.

It reiterated that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness, but such arbitrariness must be demonstrable and not merely inferred from an adverse outcome, citing *Ajay Hasia Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 722*.

The court also referred to the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as clarified in *Union of India Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 499*, stating that it cannot by itself confer an enforceable right unless the denial is arbitrary or violative of established administrative law principles.

Furthermore, relying on *Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy Ors., (2011) 9 SCC 286*, it noted that Article 14 strikes at arbitrary actions, which in turn negate equality.

The court found that the selection process prescribed a pre-declared weightage of 70% for the written examination and 30% for the Professional Competency Test (including interview), which the applicant participated in with full knowledge.

The court noted that mere inclusion in a select list or high marks in the written exam does not confer an enforceable right to selection, as the interview performance is an integral part of the composite assessment.

While the applicant received low interview marks, the court observed that other candidates also received lower scores, suggesting the marks fell within a permissible assessment framework.

Crucially, the written examination marks were not disclosed to KVS or the Interview Board prior to interviews, ruling out potential prejudice based on prior performance knowledge.

Interview marks were uploaded digitally on the same day without modification, and CBSE prepared the final merit list based on aggregate marks.

The court concluded that no material was placed on record to establish bias, procedural irregularity, or *mala fide* intention in the interview process.

It distinguished the applicant's case from instances of demonstrable arbitrariness or violations of legitimate expectation, emphasizing that such claims require concrete evidence beyond an adverse outcome.

The court held that the respondents conducted the selection process in accordance with the pre-notified scheme, which was uniformly applicable to all candidates and not contrary to any statutory rule.

The court found no proof of procedural irregularity or violation of rules in the selection process, concluding that mere low marks in the interview, without supporting evidence of unfairness, were insufficient grounds for intervention.

The interim order dated February 20, 2024, was vacated.