Back
Rules Candidates Can't Turn Around After Unpalatable Result in Prosecution Service Recruitment
Dismisses Challenge to Recruitment of Public Prosecutors, Affirms Principle of for Candidates Who Participate Without Protest
The has dismissed a challenging the select list for recruitment to the posts of Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor, and Assistant Public Prosecutor under the Rules, 2023. Justice Devashis Baruah held that the four petitioners, having participated in the selection process , could not later turn around and assail the proceedings merely because the outcome was unpalatable.
The Recruitment and the Challenge
In , the advertised 299 posts—26 Public Prosecutors, 88 Additional Public Prosecutors, and 185 Assistant Public Prosecutors. Three Selection Boards, each chaired by a retired High Court judge, were constituted under the amended Rule 15 of the Rules, 2023. A joint meeting of the Boards on devised a uniform evaluation methodology: candidates would be assessed on a 100-mark scale, with 70 marks for drafting skills, analytical and presentation skills, mental agility, and grasp of judicial precedents; 20 marks for personality and temperament; and 10 marks for academic performance.
Call letters issued to candidates required them to produce copies of pleadings drafted by them and judgments in criminal cases where they had appeared and argued. Over 2,300 candidates appeared for the test, which was conducted between and . The select list was published on , and appointment orders were issued to 241 candidates.
Four unsuccessful candidates—Devajani Gogoi, Abdul Rezzak, Unmona Borah, and Md. Amir Ali Khan—filed a in , alleging that the selection process was opaque and violated . They contended that the advertisement did not disclose the precise marking criteria, that the documents required in the call letters ought to have been part of the advertisement, and that the Selection Boards had no authority to devise the evaluation method. They also argued that the failure to retain the pleadings and judgments produced by candidates made the process non-transparent.
The Principle of Applied
The State of Assam, represented by , raised a preliminary objection: the petitioners had participated in the selection process without any protest and only challenged it after learning they had not been selected. The High Court agreed, relying on a long line of decisions.
Justice Baruah noted that the general rule—that a candidate who takes a by appearing in a selection cannot later challenge it—is subject to limited exceptions: where the selection is held contrary to statutory rules or notifications, where the advertised criteria are not followed, or where apparent illegalities are noticed during the process and promptly assailed. None of these exceptions applied to the petitioners.
The court observed that the petitioners were aware of the criteria from the very beginning. of the 2023 Rules clearly stated that the would assess drafting skills, analytical and presentation skills, mental agility, and knowledge of judicial precedents. The call letters further specified the documents required for evaluation. Yet the petitioners did not raise any objection at the time of the interview—two of them appeared twice, and one appeared three times. The fourth petitioner did not even attend the interview. Only after the results were declared and they found themselves unsuccessful did they approach the court.
“In the opinion of this Court, the case of the Petitioners squarely falls with the general proposition of law well settled by the that a candidate having participated in the selection proceedings cannot be allowed to challenge the proceedings after having found the result of the selection proceedings not palatable,” Justice Baruah wrote.
No Illegality in the Selection Process
Even on merits, the court found no infirmity. It held that the Selection Boards were duly authorized under of the Rules and the government notification dated to devise the . The marking scheme—70 marks for core skills, 20 for personality, and 10 for academics—was applied uniformly to all candidates. The court rejected the argument that non-retention of the pleadings and judgments rendered the process opaque, observing that these documents were used only as a basis for formulating questions and were not required to be preserved under , which only mandates maintenance of “a true and faithful record of the proceedings.”
The court also noted that the marks obtained by each candidate were available in the records and could have been accessed under the . Allegations of were conspicuously absent.
Key Observations
The High Court quoted extensively from precedents, including , , and , to reiterate that candidates who participate without protest are estopped from challenging the process after an adverse result.
Justice Baruah emphasized the limited scope of in selection matters, stating that courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of expert selection committees unless there is proven malfeasance or violation of statutory rules.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the with no order as to costs, upholding the select list and the appointments made thereunder. The judgment reinforces the principle that candidates cannot by taking a chance in the selection process and only later questioning its validity when the outcome is unfavorable.
