Summary
The Court restored the appellant’s selection as Junior Lab Technician by setting aside the Division Bench judgment. The rival’s writ petition challenged the individual selection on comparative merit, rather than the entire list or the experience-and-interview criteria. The Division Bench exceeded that challenge by invalidating the broader selection process. On the actual comparison, the appellant’s longer experience, including government teaching-hospital service, rationally explained the higher experience marks; no glaring error or mala fides was established.
Issues
- Whether the Division Bench exceeded the individual challenge by adjudicating the validity of the broader selection criteria and list.
- Whether higher qualifying-examination marks alone required selection over the appellant’s experience-weighted total.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaJudicial review had to remain within the pleaded selection challenge and could not replace the expert committee’s assessment absent the identified grounds for intervention. (¶¶ 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20)
Held
- The original challenge sought the rival candidate’s appointment on comparative merit. He had not challenged the entire list or the inclusion of experience and interview components. The Division Bench transgressed that challenge by scrutinising the whole list and invalidating the criteria; the cited mid-selection rule-change cases did not assist him on this pleaded case. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- The committee’s experience yardsticks concerned length of service and preference for government or autonomous teaching-hospital work resembling the institution’s conditions. The appellant’s substantially longer and relevant institutional experience bore a rational nexus to the higher marks awarded. (¶¶ 3, 4, 15, 16)
- On this comparison, neither mala fides nor an obvious, glaring error or perversity was shown. The court did not sit in appeal over the selection committee, and the rival’s higher qualifying-examination score alone did not resolve the selection under the prescribed components. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment dated 31 March 2017 set aside, removing its interference with the appellant’s selection. Pending applications disposed of.