Vague allegations of corruption without cogent evidence cannot invalidate selection processes or permit reassessment of interview marks.

The applicants challenged the recruitment process initiated by the Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot (COD), Agra, via notification dated 07.08.2010 for the posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), Telephone Operator, and Fireman

The applicants in all three OAs alleged that despite successfully clearing the written examinations and subsequent stages, they were excluded from the final selection list in favor of private respondents who purportedly obtained lower marks

They alleged nepotism, favoritism, and corruption (bribery) in the interview process

Regarding the Fireman post (OA 85/2011), the selection was initially cancelled by the department due to technical errors but was subsequently restored and finalized following the Tribunal’s directions in OA 180/2011 (dated 21.12.2012), which ordered rectification of clerical mistakes rather than total cancellation

The private respondents in all categories joined service around 2011–2013 and have been serving since

1. Whether the selection processes for the posts of LDC, Telephone Operator, and Fireman were vitiated by corruption, nepotism, and arbitrary awarding of interview marks

2. Whether the selection for the post of Fireman could be quashed despite being finalized pursuant to prior judicial directions by the same Tribunal

The court primarily relied on the principle of proportionality as established in Rajesh P.U. v. State of Kerala, which holds that a selection process should not be cancelled in its entirety if the irregularities are not pervasive and the beneficiaries of such irregularities can be weeded out

It further applied the principle of judicial restraint regarding the evaluation of candidates by expert selection committees, asserting that Tribunals should not interfere with marks awarded in interviews unless mala fides are proven

Finally, the court applied the doctrine of finality of judgments, noting that issues already decided in previous litigations (OA 180/2011) regarding the same selection process carry binding effect

The Tribunal found that the selection for the post of Fireman had already undergone judicial scrutiny in OA 180/2011 and OA 262/2011, where it was determined that the irregularities were merely clerical and did not warrant quashing the entire process

Consequently, the relief sought in OA 85/2011 was barred as the selection was finalized under specific judicial orders

Regarding the LDC and Telephone Operator posts, the Tribunal observed that the applicants failed to produce any "cogent evidence" or substantive proof to support their "vague and general" allegations of bribery and nepotism

The court emphasized that it is not within its jurisdiction to reassess interview performance or marks, as that is the exclusive domain of the expert committee

Furthermore, the court noted that the private respondents had been in service for approximately 13 years, and upsetting the selection at this late stage without evidence of pervasive fraud would be inequitable

The Tribunal dismissed OA No. 84 of 2011, OA No. 85 of 2011, and OA No. 242 of 2011 as being devoid of merit

It directed that all associated Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) be disposed of and ordered no costs

The selection of the private respondents remained intact as they had been recruited through a proper process and were continuing in service for over a decade