The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited grounds on which an unsuccessful candidate can challenge the selection process, the scope of judicial review in appointments and selections, and the factors influencing the awarding of marks in an interview.

VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of present petition the petitioner prays for appointment to the post of Junior Court Assistant in the Registry of the Supreme Court of India.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent invited applications for the post of Junior Court Assistant in the Registry of Supreme Court of India vide advertisement dated 31.10.2012. The eligible candidates were required to appear for the written test, typing test on computer followed by the interview before the Interview Board.

3. The petitioner along with other eligible candidates appeared for the written test held on 15th June, 2015. She was declared successful and was awarded 51 marks out of 100 marks. In the objective type computer knowledge written test the petitioner secured 15 marks out of 25 marks. The respondent shortlisted 1175 candidates for appearing in interview. The petitioner along with other successful candidates appeared for interview and out of 1175 candidates 500 were declared successful. The petitioner’s name did not figure in the list of 500 successful candidates. In the interview, the petitioner was awarded 6 marks out of 25 marks.

4. Mr. N.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that interview was not conducted in a fair manner as most of the candidates were awarded 13 marks irrespective of their performance in the written test. He further submits that the petitioner despite scoring 51 marks in the written test could not make it to the list of successful candidates whereas others who scored less marks than her made it to the final list.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

6. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that an unsuccessful candidate in a selection process can challenge the selection process but only on limited grounds. In K.A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 515, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an unsuccessful candidate participated in a selection process without any demur or protest could not be permitted, later on, to question the process of selection.

7. In the case in hand, admittedly, the petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate in the selection process initiated as per the advertisement dated 31st October, 2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the case of successful candidate excessive marks were awarded to them in interview whereas they scored less marks in the written test. According to the petitioner, maximum 25 marks can be awarded in the interview and the candidates who scored less marks in the written test compared to the petitioner were given about 12 or 13 marks in the interview whereas the petitioner was given only 6 marks. In fact, the selection process consisted of written test and practical test. The petitioner and other 1174 candidates cleared the written test, typing test and thereafter they were called for attending the interview.

8. So far as interview is concerned, this court without knowing what exactly are the questions put to the candidates who appeared before the Interview Board and in what manner they responded to those questions, this Court will not be in a position to state whether the other successful candidates were given escalated marks. The awarding of marks in interview would depend upon the performance of the candidates at the time of interview. The members of the Interview Board who judged the performance of the candidates awarded the marks to them and in the absence of any concrete material this court cannot interfere in the selection process. Unless and until a strong case capable of arriving at an irresistible conclusion that the selection process is vitiated is made out, this court cannot interfere with the awarding of marks in an interview conducted as part of a selection process. Merely because some of the successful candidates were awarded higher marks than that of the petitioner as mentioned above, it cannot be said that th