Judicial review of recruitment processes is limited to ensuring procedural legality and the absence of arbitrariness. Unless bias or mala fides is proven, courts will not substitute their assessment for that of selection committees, nor will they entertain challenges to completed selections without impleading the affected selected candidates.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. The Petitioner, a student of Electronics and Communication Engineering at Delhi Technological University [“DTU”], has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the selection process undertaken by Respondent No. 2, Bharat Electronics Limited [“BEL”], for recruitment to the post of Probationary Engineer through the campus recruitment process conducted during the year 2017-18.

2. The grievance in the present petition arises out of the Petitioner’s non-selection in the aforesaid recruitment process. The relief sought, inter alia, is in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection list and a direction to the Respondents to conduct the selection process in a fair and transparent manner, in accordance with law.

Factual Background

3. BEL visited the campus of DTU for recruitment to the post of Probationary Engineer. The selection process comprised two stages, namely, a written test followed by an interview. The Petitioner participated in the selection process by appearing in the written test held on 2nd April, 2018 and the interview conducted on 3rd April, 2018. Upon completion of the selection process, the Petitioner was not included in the final list of selected candidates.

4. The Petitioner thereafter submitted representations dated 7th June, 2018 and 27th June, 2018 in relation to the recruitment process. He also sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [“RTI Act”]. In response thereto, BEL, by communication dated 9th July, 2018, informed the Petitioner that he had secured “43.56 marks out of 85” in the written test and “04.00 out of 15.00 marks” in the interview. Subsequently, by communication dated 30th August, 2018, BEL informed the Petitioner that he had secured “30.75 out of 60 marks” in the written test and “4 out of 15 marks” in the interview.

Petitioner’s Contentions

5. In support of the petition, Ms. Vrinda Goyal, counsel for the Petitioner, makes the following submissions:

5.1. The selection process is vitiated by arbitrariness, lack of transparency and favouritism. The Petitioner had secured the highest marks in the written test, yet was excluded from the final list of selected candidates. Candidates who had secured lower marks in the written examination were selected by being awarded disproportionately high marks in the interview. Despite being the highest scorer in the written test, the Petitioner was effectively eliminated through the interview process.

5.2. The Respondents have not disclosed the basis, parameters or criteria on which marks were awarded in the interview. The Petitioner secured only 4 marks out of 15 in the interview and there is no material on record to demonstrate any objective assessment or evaluation. The methodology adopted for awarding interview marks, as well as the individual assessment forming the basis thereof, has not been disclosed. In the absence of any disclosed criteria governing the interview process, the interview marks were utilized to displa