2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8624

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Khushbu Devangan – Appellant
Versus
Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg – Respondent
WPS No. 1363 of 2023|WPS No. 2468 of 2023|WPS No. 2505 of 2023

Courts will not interfere with public recruitment processes absent material prejudice, proven mala fides, or violation of statutory rules. Unsuccessful candidates who participated in the selection process without objection are estopped from challenging it, and any challenge must implead successful candidates to be maintainable.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review of public employment recruitment - Scope and limitations - Courts should not ordinarily interfere with recruitment processes on mere technicalities unless it is shown that the action complained of has materially affected the fairness of the selection or involved proven mala fides - Procedural deviations that do not cause real prejudice to candidates cannot be a ground for setting aside the entire selection process. (Paras 31, 32, 42, 48)

(B) Service Law - Recruitment process - Doctrine of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel - Candidates who voluntarily participate in the selection process with knowledge of the criteria cannot challenge the procedure after being declared unsuccessful - A candidate cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate when the result is not palatable. (Paras 35, 36, 37, 44)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 9 - Non-joinder of necessary parties - In a challenge to a selection process, the successful candidates whose vested rights are affected are necessary parties - A failure to implead at least a representative set of selected candidates renders the petition defective and is fatal to its maintainability. (Paras 38, 39, 40, 45, 46)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the recruitment process for ministerial posts alleging irregularities in the reconstitution of the selection committee, modification of the examination pattern from 50 questions to 25 questions, lack of scrutiny of application forms, and failure to publish answer keys or category-wise result details. The petitioners participated in the written examination without prior protest and sought to challenge the selection process only after they were declared unsuccessful.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the modifications in the examination pattern were applied uniformly, the total marks remained unchanged, and petitioners failed to demonstrate actual prejudice or mala fides. The court further held that the petitioners were caught by the doctrine of estoppel having participated in the process and failing to challenge it timely, and that the petition was unsustainable due to the non-impleadment of successful candidates.

Issues: Whether the minor procedural variations in the recruitment process vitiated the selection, and whether a challenge to the selection process is maintainable when successful candidates have not been impleaded as parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review of recruitment is limited to addressing patent illegality or material prejudice. In the absence of established prejudice, administrative adjustments do not warrant interference. Furthermore, a candidate who participates in a process without objection cannot challenge it upon failure, and a petition challenging a selection process without joining the successful candidates is non-maintainable.

Result: Petitions dismissed.