Unsuccessful candidates who participate in a selection process without protest are barred by the principle of acquiescence from later challenging the selection criteria, particularly when no evidence of mala fide or arbitrary application of rules is demonstrated.

O R D E R

07.01.2026

1. The present petition assails the result declared on 10th May, 2023 by Respondent No. 1, Mata Sundri College for Women, in respect of the post of Administrative Officer (VH Category).

2. The Petitioner, a person with visual impairment, applied pursuant to the advertisement issued for the said post. A written examination was held on 6th February, 2023, followed by an interview on 10th May, 2023. The result declared on the same date records that no candidate was found suitable and that the post would be re-advertised in terms of the applicable Recruitment Rules.

3. The Petitioner, being unsuccessful seeks quashing of the result dated 10th May, 2023 and a restraint against filling the post or proceeding with a fresh recruitment process. The reliefs sought are as under:

1. Quash the “Result” on the May 10,2023 issued by the respondent college, declaring the petitioner and all the disabled candidates as unsuitable for the disability reserved post of administrative officer.

2. Direct the respondent college not to fill up the post till the final disposed of this petition.

3. Direct the respondent college not to proceed further with the readvertisement of the post by way of receiving application and processing these.

4. Direct that any action taken by the college concerning the administrative officer’s post will be subject to the result of this petition.

4. Mr. Pawan Reley, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that although the Petitioner participated in the selection process, the challenge is directed to the legality of the selection mechanism. It is urged that the advertisement anchored the selection to the Recruitment Rules (Non-Teaching Employees), 2020 framed by the University of Delhi, including the Scheme of Examination in Appendix 4. He contends that Clause 6 of the Note to the Scheme of Examination was applied in an arbitrary and opaque manner, with the practical effect of diluting the reservation earmarked for persons with disabilities.

5. Developing the submission, Mr. Reley argues that Clause 6 envisages a merit-based selection in which candidates must qualify Paper I, Paper II and the Personality Test/Interview separately, and that a merit list is then to be drawn on the basis of the combined score of the two written papers and the interview. The College, however failed to prepare and disclose the merit list for the written examination, the interview, or the consolidated merit list, thereby departing from the prescribed framework and rendering the exercise arbitrary. It is further submitted that Clause 6 prescribes a minimum of 50% marks in the Personality Test/Interview, yet no evaluation chart or disclosed record exists to show how the Selection Committee assessed candidates on the notified parameters or how it reached the conclusion that no candidate was suitable. The interview was conducted perfunctorily and not in accordance with the seven factors set out in the Note to the Scheme of Examination. Reliance is placed on Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi¹1 (1981) 1 SCC 722. to contend that the weightage accorded to the interview and the manner of its conduct admit of arbitrariness and are impermissible in law.

6. The Court is not persuaded that the present challenge merits interference under Article 226. Judicial review in recruitment matters is necessarily limited. The Court does not sit in appeal over the decisions of a Selection Committee or an expert body, nor does it re-evaluate marks, suitability, or the eligibility conditions prescribed by the employer. Interference is warranted onl