TAJVIR SINGH SODHI & ORS. versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 28-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 20 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
TAJVIR SINGH SODHI & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2164–2172 of 2023)
MARCH 28, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service law: Selection process – Quashing of – Selection
process conducted for appointment of drug inspectors – 64 persons
including some appellants selected and appointed as drug inspectors
and are serving on the said posts – However, the said selection and
appointment challenged alleging discrepancies in the selection
procedure – High Court quashed the selection and appointment –
Upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: Candidates, having
taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest,
cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful
– Candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time –
Simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable
to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was
unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process – Challenge
ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver
and acquiescence – Furthermore, no mala fide or arbitrariness is
found in the selection process – Recasting the selection criteria
was only with regard to allocation of marks for the respective
educational qualification of the candidates – It was with a view to
preserve the standards of the selection process – Furthermore, the
assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates
appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board should
be best left to the members of the committee – In light of the pertinent
selection procedure that was followed, the Court is unable to hold
that the same was mechanical or casual or suffered from irregularities
which were so grave or arbitrary in nature so as to justify quashing
the entire selection process –Thus, the High Court not justified in
quashing and setting aside the entire selection process, more so
when sixty-four candidates including the appellants had been
serving on the said post for over a decade – Jammu and Kashmir
Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992 – rr. 9 and 9A.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 714
714
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
715
Selection process for public employment – Scope of judicial
review – Held: Courts generally avoid interfering in the selection
process of public employment, to maintain the autonomy and
integrity of the selection process – Process of selection involves a
high degree of expertise and discretion – Not appropriate for Courts
to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee – Courts
intervene only when there are proven allegations of malfeasance
or violations of statutory rules, or inherent arbitrariness.
Words and Phrases: ‘Pharmacology’ and ‘Pharmacy’–
Meaning of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Courts generally avoid interfering in the
selection process of public employment, recognising the
importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the
selection process. The Courts recognise that the process of
selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and
that it is not appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment
for that of a selection committee. It would be indeed, treading on
thin ice if the Court were to venture into reviewing the decision
of experts who form a part of a selection board. Thus, it is not
within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial
review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task
which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a
Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there
are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory
rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts
intervene. Thus, the Courts while exercising the power of judicial
review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or
assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded
by the Selection Committee in the viva-voce are excessive and
not corresponding to their performance in such test. The
assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates
appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board
should be best left to the members of the Committee. In light of
the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision
taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the
following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based
o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.