Judicial review in selection processes should respect expert assessments unless there's evidence of procedural impropriety or mala fides; estoppel applies when candidates participate without contesting the selection criteria.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

1. Both these intra-court appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 764 of 2017, Shailendra Kumar Singh vs. Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, District Haridwar through its Registrar and others , whereby the writ petition was allowed with cost of rs. 25,000/-. The learned Single Judge set aside the selection of appellant Pradeep Kumar Barve for the post of Junior Technical Superintendent (Radiology) and directed the IIT Roorkee to re-advertise the post in accordance with law. Further, the learned Single Judge directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Registrar, IIT Roorkee, and the members of the Selection Committee, observing that the selection process was carried out in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant–IIT Roorkee issued an advertisement dated 21.08.2015 inviting applications for various posts, including one post of Junior Technical Superintendent (Radiology) reserved for Scheduled Caste category. The essential qualification prescribed was M.Sc. (Radiology) or B.Sc. (Radiology/Radiography) from a recognized University/Institute with two years’ relevant experience. Both Pradeep Kumar Barve (appellant in SPA No. 210 of 2018) and Shailendra Kumar Singh (writ petitioner) applied for the said post. After the screening process, both candidates were found eligible and were called to appear in the written test. Upon evaluation, Pradeep Kumar Barve secured 40.5 marks out of 100, whereas Shailendra Kumar Singh secured 30.5 marks. As per the recruitment norms, the minimum qualifying marks for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category were 40. Consequently, the appellant-Pradeep Kumar Barve was declared successful and was issued an appointment letter dated 16.03.2017. This appointment was challenged before the learned Single Judge, who by the impugned order, set aside the selection.

3. Since common issues of fact and law arise in both appeals, they are being decided together. For convenience, the facts of Special Appeal No. 216 of 2018 are taken into consideration.

4. It is submitted by the appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition as the petitioner Shailendra Kumar Singh had himself participated in the selection process and, after being declared unsuccessful, challenged the same. Such a course is impermissible under the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, as settled in D. Sarojakumar v. R. Helen Thilakom and Others , (2017) 9 SCC 478 . It is contended that there was no pleading in the writ petition questioning the equivalence of the degree of Pradeep Kumar Barve (B.Sc. in Radiation Technology) vis-à- vis B.Sc. in Radiology/Radiography, and in the absence of such pleading, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appellant lacked the requisite qualification. Reliance was placed on Bacchaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal , (2008) 17 SCC 491 , wherein it was held that courts cannot base findings on facts not pleaded.

5. It is further urged that appellant-Pradeep Kumar Barve possessed the requisite educational qualification and experience as per the advertisement. He was employed as a Radiographic Technician in the Department of Radio- Diagnosis at AIIMS, Raipur, and had more than two years and nine months’ experience in the field of Radiography. The Screening and Selection Committee, comprising medical experts, had duly examined the equivalence of the degrees and found no substantive difference except in nomenclature. The syllabus of B.Sc. Radiation Technology was found substantially identical to that of