W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 1 of 21

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 24.03.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 08.04.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 08.04.2026

+ W.P.(C) 8454/2021

PUNEET KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. .....Petitioners

Through: P-1 and 2 in-person.

versus

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD

(DSSSB) & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC along

Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms.

Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish

Sehrawat, Advs.

Mr. Padmakumar S., Adv.

Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr.

Parvin Bansal, Advs.

Mr. Anil Singal and Ms.

Nandita Sharma, Advs. for R-

25, 36 to 28 and 40.

+ W.P.(C) 11457/2021, CM APPL. 35263/2021 and CM APPL.

53516/2022

SANDEEP SAINI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rakesh Nautiyal, Adv.

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC along

Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms.

Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish

Sehrawat, Advs.

Mr. Padmakumar S., Adv.

Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr.

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 2 of 21

Parvin Bansal, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 11463/2021, CM APPL. 35291/2021 and CM APPL.

53531/2022

LOKIT PRAKASH & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Rakesh Nautiyal, Adv.

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC along

Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms.

Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish

Sehrawat, Advs.

Mr. Padmakumar S., Adv.

Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr.

Parvin Bansal, Advs.

Mr. Rakesh Nautiyal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.:

1. Through the present Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners assail the correctness and

legality of the common Order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

[hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟] in O.A. Nos.3292/2015,

3293/2015 and 3390/2015, as well as the consequential Order dated

06.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.3614/2015, whereby

the Original Applications („OAs‟) preferred by the Petitioners came to

be dismissed [hereinafter collectively referred to as „Impugned

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 21

Orders‟].

2. With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties,

and as common questions of fact and law arise in the present batch of

Writ Petitions emanating from the same recruitment process and

Impugned Orders, the matters are being disposed of by this common

judgment.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,

the relevant facts, which though are scanty and lack complete clarity,

are required to be stated.

4. The vacancies forming the subject matter of Recruitment

Advertisement No.02/2012 trace their origin to an earlier recruitment

exercise relating to the post of Junior Engineer (E&M) [hereinafter

referred to as „JE (E&M)‟] initiated in the year 1991.

5. The disputes arising from the earlier recruitment ultimately

culminated in T.A. No.987/2009, wherein the Tribunal, by order dated

13.11.2009, directed that vacancies falling within the direct

recruitment quota be filled in accordance with the applicable

Recruitment Rules and the prevailing method of direct recruitment,

while extending consequential protections and age relaxation to

candidates who had been litigating since the earlier recruitment cycle.

6. Thereafter, further proceedings including O.A. No.4271/2011

were instituted before the Tribunal, which came to be disposed of on

27.04.2012 with directions to the Delhi Subordinate Services

Selection Board („DSSSB‟) to initiate a fresh recruitment process and

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 4 of 21

issue an advertisement for filling the posts within a stipulated time

frame.

7. Pursuant thereto, DSSSB issued Recruitment Advertisement

dated 15.05.2012 inviting applications for various posts, including the

post of JE (E&M) in the Delhi Jal Board („DJB‟). The prescribed

method of selection under the advertisement comprised a two-tier

written examination followed by interview.

8. Subsequently, the DSSSB issued a corrigendum dated

11.07.2013, stipulating that where the number of eligible candidates

for a post was less than 500, the written examination would not be

conducted and the selection would instead be undertaken on the basis

of weightage assigned to academic qualifications, experience and

interview in the ratio of 40:20:40, where experience was essential, or

50:50 between academic qualification and interview where experience

was not prescribed.

9. Thereafter, certain candidates connected with the earlier

recruitment process approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.4239/2013.

By order dated 07.10.2013, this Court directed that such candidates be

permitted to participate in the recruitment process and that their

candidature be considered through interview, in continuation of earlier

judicial directions.

10. The aforesaid directions resulted in the emergence of two

categories of candidates, namely, those participating pursuant to

Advertisement No.02/2012 and departmental candidates governed by

earlier judicial orders requiring interview-based evaluation.

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 5 of 21

11. Pursuant to the advertisement, a total of 7047 applications were

received. In view of the practical difficulty in preparing a combined

merit list based upon different modes of assessment, DSSSB

examined the issue in consultation with the user department and the

Services Department, GNCTD. It was proposed that candidates

responding to the advertisement be subjected to a written screening

test for shortlisting, all eligible candidates thereafter be called for

interview, and a common merit list be prepared on the basis of

interview performance so as to maintain uniformity amongst all

candidates.

12. The proposal for modification of the examination scheme was

placed before the competent authority, and approval of the Lieutenant

Governor was obtained. The Respondents thereafter proceeded to

implement the revised selection methodology, conducting a screening

test for shortlisting candidates followed by interviews of shortlisted

candidates as well as departmental candidates.

13. In furtherance thereof, DSSSB conducted the screening test on

28.12.2014 for shortlisting candidates. The results were declared on

04.03.2015, and shortlisted candidates, including the present

Petitioners, were called for interview vide notice dated 17.03.2015.

Interviews were conducted between 25.03.2015 and 30.03.2015, and

interview marks were published on 08.04.2015.

14. On 26.08.2015, DSSSB declared the final result vide Result

Notice No.334. It is the case of the Petitioners that the final merit list

was prepared solely on the basis of interview marks, without assigning

any weightage to academic qualifications or experience, thereby

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 6 of 21

allegedly violating the Recruitment Advertisement No.02/2012 as well

as the corrigendum dated 11.07.2013 governing the selection process.

15. Aggrieved by the said selection, the Petitioners instituted O.A.

Nos.3292/2015 and 3293/2015 before the Tribunal, seeking quashing

of the final result dated 26.08.2015 and consequential directions for

preparation of the merit list strictly in accordance with the prescribed

weightage criteria. A connected O.A. No.3390/2015 raising identical

challenges to the same recruitment process was also instituted before

the Tribunal, and the matters came to be heard together. During the

pendency of the proceedings, appointments were made subject to the

outcome of the OAs.

16. The Respondents defended the selection process before the

Tribunal by contending that certain candidates arising from an earlier

recruitment process initiated in the year 1991 had obtained judicial

directions permitting their selection solely on the basis of interview.

According to the Respondents, in order to maintain uniformity

amongst candidates, a conscious decision was taken to adopt interview

marks as the sole basis of selection for all candidates.

17. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the Tribunal, by

common Order dated 07.07.2021, recorded that the method adopted

by the Respondents appeared inconsistent with the procedure

prescribed in the recruitment advertisement and corrigendum.

However, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the selection process,

holding that the deviation stood justified in view of prior judicial

directions and administrative decisions governing candidates from the

earlier recruitment process, and consequently dismissed the OAs.

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 7 of 21

18. Thereafter, a similarly placed O.A. No.3614/2015 came to be

dismissed by the Tribunal vide Order dated 06.08.2021, relying upon

and following the reasoning adopted in the earlier common order

dated 07.07.2021.

19. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the aforesaid OAs and the

upholding of the impugned selection process, the Petitioners have

preferred the present Writ Petitions assailing the Impugned Orders.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

20. Heard the Petitioners appearing in person in W.P.(C)

No.8454/2021 and learned counsel appearing for the parties in the

connected Writ Petitions and, with their assistance, perused the

material placed on record.

21. The Petitioners appearing in person, as well as learned counsel

representing the Petitioners in the connected matters, have submitted

as follows:

i. The Recruitment Advertisement No.02/2012, read with the

corrigendum dated 11.07.2013, prescribed a specific selection

methodology assigning weightage to academic qualifications,

experience and interview, and the Respondents were bound to adhere

to the notified criteria. The rules of the game could not have been

altered after commencement of the selection process.

ii. The preparation of the final merit list solely on the basis of

interview marks amounts to an impermissible alteration of the

selection process after commencement of recruitment, thereby

violating settled principles governing public employment.

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 8 of 21

iii. The Tribunal, despite recording a categorical finding that the

method adopted by the Respondents was inconsistent with the

prescribed procedure, erred in law in declining to grant relief to the

Petitioners, rendering the Impugned Orders inconsistent and

unsustainable.

iv. Judicial directions issued in respect of candidates arising from

an earlier recruitment process of the year 1991 could not legally be

extended to fresh candidates who participated pursuant to Recruitment

Advertisement No.02/2012, nor could such directions override the

applicable recruitment conditions.

v. The decision to adopt interview as the sole criterion was neither

disclosed to candidates during the selection process nor reflected in

the advertisement or corrigendum, thereby offending the principles of

transparency, fairness and legitimate expectation.

22. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has

submitted as follows:

i. The decision to adopt interview as the sole basis of selection

was necessitated by peculiar circumstances arising from earlier

judicial directions concerning candidates from the 1991 recruitment

process who were required to be considered only through interview.

ii. In order to maintain uniformity and avoid application of

different standards to similarly situated candidates, the Respondents

adopted a common interview-based selection procedure for all

participants.

iii. The written examination conducted pursuant to Recruitment

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 9 of 21

Advertisement No.02/2012 was intended only for shortlisting

purposes and not for preparation of the final merit list.

iv. The administrative decision, having been taken pursuant to

judicial directions and policy considerations, did not warrant

interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,

particularly when the selection process stood concluded and

appointments had already been made.

23. Learned counsel appearing for Private Respondent Nos.25, 28

to 36 and 40 has further submitted as follows:

i. No eligibility condition was altered nor was any candidate

excluded from participation. Hence, the “rules of the game” were not

changed midstream. Reliance is placed on State of Uttar Pradesh v.

Karunesh Kumar & Ors.

1

ii. The selection procedure was necessitated by peculiar

circumstances, as Advertisement No.02/2012 (Post Code 14/12)

pertained to vacancies traceable to an earlier recruitment process

initiated in 1991.

iii. This Court, in Cont. Cas(C) No.863/2014 vide order dated

02.03.2015, acknowledged the difficulty in applying different

selection methodologies within the same recruitment and observed

that preparation of a combined merit list based on distinct procedures

would not be feasible.

iv. The uniform interview-based selection was adopted after

1

AIR 2023 SC 52

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 10 of 21

approval of the Lieutenant Governor and after apprising this Court,

and thus cannot be termed arbitrary.

v. The Petitioners, having participated in the process without

demur and challenged it only upon being unsuccessful, are estopped

from assailing the selection, in terms of Madan Lal v. State of J&K

2

;

K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala

3

; and Om Prakash Shukla v.

Akhilesh Kumar Shukla

4

.

24. No other submissions were advanced by learned counsel for the

parties.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

25. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced

by the parties, examined the material placed on record, and scrutinised

the Impugned Orders passed by the Tribunal in the light of the

governing recruitment conditions as well as the settled principles

regulating judicial review in matters of public employment.

26. The principal grievance of the Petitioners is that although

Recruitment Advertisement No.02/2012, read with the corrigendum

dated 11.07.2013, prescribed assignment of weightage to academic

qualifications, experience and interview, the Respondents ultimately

prepared the final merit list solely on the basis of interview marks,

thereby allegedly altering the “rules of the game” after

commencement of the selection process.

2

(1995) 3 SCC 486

3

(2006) 6 SCC 395

4

(1986) Supp SCC 285

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 11 of 21

27. There can be no dispute with the proposition that recruitment

authorities are ordinarily bound by the procedure notified in the

advertisement and that midstream changes affecting fairness of

competition are impermissible. The doctrine that the rules of the game

cannot be changed after commencement of selection is a well-

recognised facet of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However,

the application of the said doctrine is not mechanical and must

necessarily depend upon the nature of the change introduced, the

surrounding circumstances compelling such decision, and whether the

alteration results in exclusion or disqualification of candidates who

were otherwise eligible to compete.

28. In this backdrop, it is considered that the recruitment in

question cannot be viewed in isolation from the prolonged litigation

history arising from the earlier recruitment exercise initiated in the

year 1991 by the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal

Undertaking (now known as the DJB), wherein departmental

candidates were invited for appointment to the post of JE (E&M)

through a process of interview.

29. Subsequently, the mode of recruitment was altered to promotion

by the user department, thereby leading to the filing of W.P.(C)

No.4930/1993 before this Court, which was later transferred to the

Tribunal and renumbered as T.A. No.987/2009. The Tribunal disposed

of the said T.A. vide order dated 13.11.2009, issuing, inter alia, the

following directions:

“The RR clearly stipulates that percentage of the vacancies to

be filled up in the following manner (1) 10% by promotion

failing which by direct recruitment and (2) 90% by direct

recruitment. In the relevant year in this case being 1992 and

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 12 of 21

vacancies there available being 40, it is determined that 4 posts

JE (M/E) are to be filled up by promotion and 36 posts by direct

recruitment. In that year, if 4 vacancies were not filled up by

promotion since eligible feeder category employees were not

available, those 4 posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment.

The next issue is procedure to be adopted for direct recruitment.

The respondents are competent to engage DSSSB for any other

agency admissible for the direct recruitment purpose. Whatever

was the direct recruitment practice (Interview or written test +

interview) in the relevant year must be followed to fill up those

vacancies.) The exercise shall be completed within 3 months

from the date of this order. It is needless to mention that those of

the applicants who get selected and appointed in the post of JE

(M/E) will be positioned from appropriate year notionally with

no arrears of pay accruing to them. We also direct that those

Work Assistants who were promoted to the direct recruitment

quota of JE(M/E) are to be vacate such posts.

Those of the applicants who have applied for the post of

JE(M/E) then direct recruitment quota are eligible for the age

relaxation as already ordered by the Hon’ble Court of Delhi.”

(Emphasis supplied.)

30. Thereafter, O.A. No.4271/2011 was filed before the Tribunal,

which came to be disposed of on 27.04.2012 with a direction to the

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board [hereinafter referred to as

„DSSSB‟] to issue an advertisement on or before 30.05.2012 and to

undertake scrutiny of applications of departmental candidates. The

entire exercise was directed to be completed within three months from

the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

31. Thereafter, certain applicants filed W.P.(C) No.4239/2013

before this Court contending that having applied pursuant to the

recruitment process initiated in the year 1991, they were not required

to submit fresh applications under the Recruitment Notice dated

15.05.2012 and that their earlier applications ought to be considered.

In the said writ petition, the Court issued positive directions requiring

completion of the process through interview-based evaluation. The

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 13 of 21

same was disposed of on 07.10.2013 with the following directions:

“11. It is seen that in the year 1991 when the petitioners had

submitted their applications the notification was issued by Delhi

Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking whose

successor in interest is Delhi Jal Board. Surely 22 years have

gone by and it would not be possible for the successor

organization Delhi Jal Board to trace out the applications so

submitted by the petitioners.

12. It is a case where petitioners have been agitating since very

long. They should not be dislodged only on the ground that they

have not applied pursuant to the advertisement dated May 18,

2012. They have orders passed on April 06, 1995, November 13,

2009 and April 27, 2011 in their favour. Moreover in view of the

stand taken by the counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ

petition in terms of the following directions:-

a) The petitioners shall submit their applications

pursuant to the advertisement in Employment News on

May 18, 2012 by October 31, 2013.

b) The Delhi Jal Board, on receipt of the applications

from the petitioners forward the same to the DSSSB

within a period of two weeks.

c) The DSSSB would consider the candidature of the

petitioners in terms of the process of interview only as

has been directed by the Tribunal in its order dated

November 13, 2009 while disposing of

T.A.No.987/2009.

13. We make it clear that we have only decided issue arising

from the order dated April 30, 2013 in C.P.No.769/2012 in

Original Application No.4277/2011.”

(Emphasis supplied.)

32. Thereafter, DSSSB, in its meeting held on 02.04.2014,

deliberated upon the mode of selection and recorded the following

decision:

“As per New Examination Scheme of the Board the selection of

the candidates for the said post shall be made on the basis of Two

Tier Examination while Hon’ble High Court has ordered that

the selection of departmental candidates should be made on the

basis of interview only. It was observed that it is not possible to

make the merit list on the basis of two different mode of

selection i.e. written examination for general candidates and

interview for departmental candidate. To have a different

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 14 of 21

selection process for the departmental candidates, the number

of posts needs to be earmarked for them. Thereafter, it was

decided that the DJB may be requested to identify number of

vacancies out of the total number of vacancies (Total-39) which

could be filled by departmental candidates and to clarify the

reason for forwarding the applications of non-petitioners and the

applications received after 31.10.13.”

(Emphasis supplied.)

33. In response, DJB informed DSSSB that the requisition had been

forwarded for filling up posts of JE (E&M) under the direct

recruitment quota and that no direction had been issued by the High

Court requiring identification or earmarking of vacancies specifically

for departmental candidates.

34. Pursuant to the Recruitment Advertisement dated 15.05.2012, a

total of 7047 applications were received. The matter was thereafter

placed before the Services Department, GNCTD, seeking advice

regarding the appropriate method of selection. The Services

Department opined that relaxation from the existing approved scheme

of two-tier examination could be sought in the peculiar facts of the

case and approval of the Lieutenant Governor could be obtained for

adopting a selection process based on interview, in compliance with

the orders of this Court.

35. Consequently, a proposal was submitted for approval of the

Lieutenant Governor, placing on record, inter alia, the following:

“a) Candidates numbering 7047 who applied in response to

our advertisement no in the year 2012 will be screened through

a written exam and approximate no. of candidates 6 times of the

total vacancies will be called for the interview.

b) All the departmental candidates who have their

application up to 31.10.2013 will also be called for interview.

c) A combined merit list of both sets of candidates will be

made on the basis of interview only.”

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 15 of 21

36. The Respondents further apprised this Court that approval of

the Lieutenant Governor had been obtained to suitably modify the

examination scheme so that all candidates could be evaluated

uniformly, and that a combined merit list would be prepared on the

basis of interview performance alone after screening through a written

test for shortlisting purposes.

37. Pursuant thereto, a revised examination scheme dated

27.11.2014 was notified, providing for a written screening test solely

for the purpose of shortlisting, to be followed by an interview for all

eligible candidates, including departmental candidates. Through the

said notification, DSSSB also informed the candidates that all earlier

notifications stood superseded. Notably, the Petitioners did not raise

any objection to the revised scheme of selection at the stage when the

Screening Test was conducted.

38. The record thus demonstrates that the selection was not founded

exclusively upon interview. In the peculiar facts and prevailing

circumstances, a conscious decision was taken to conduct a written

screening test for the limited purpose of shortlisting candidates

equivalent to six times the number of notified vacancies, who were

thereafter called for interview. Consequently, the contention advanced

on behalf of the Petitioners that the entire selection process rested

solely on interview does not merit acceptance.

39. Pertinently, the aforesaid judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.4239/2013 attained finality and was binding upon the

Respondents. Moreover, the requirement of interview-based

consideration was again brought to the notice of this Court in

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 16 of 21

contempt proceedings.

40. The later proceedings in Cont. Cas(C) No.863/2014 culminated

in order dated 02.03.2015, wherein the Respondents placed on record

a detailed Counter-affidavit explaining the practical difficulties

involved in conducting recruitment through two distinct evaluation

methodologies for the same set of vacancies.

41. The Counter-affidavit disclosed that two categories of

candidates existed, one comprising thousands of candidates who had

applied pursuant to Recruitment Advertisement No.02/2012 and

another consisting of departmental candidates whose cases were

governed by earlier judicial directions mandating interview-based

assessment. It was specifically stated before this Court that

preparation of a combined merit list on the basis of two different

procedures would not be feasible.

42. After taking note of these averments, this Court declined to

issue any further directions and disposed of the contempt proceedings.

The order dated 02.03.2015, thus clearly demonstrates that the

modified selection methodology was not adopted unilaterally or

surreptitiously, but was evolved after placing the entire factual

position before this Court.

43. In the considered view of this Court, the selection process was,

therefore, conducted in a manner which was transparent, judicially

disclosed, administratively approved, and intended to harmonise

compliance with earlier binding directions while ensuring uniformity

amongst competing candidates.

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 17 of 21

44. Once the Respondents had apprised this Court of the proposed

course of action and the proceedings were disposed of without adverse

observation, the decision to adopt interview as the common criterion

cannot subsequently be characterised as arbitrary or mala fide. Judicial

review cannot proceed on the assumption that the employer acted

dehors judicial scrutiny when, in fact, the process stood shaped under

the gaze of this Court itself.

45. Accordingly, it becomes evident that, in the peculiar factual

matrix obtaining herein, the Respondents adopted a course of action

which was fair, reasonable and transparent, evolved only after duly

apprising this Court of the practical and legal complexities arising

from the coexistence of two categories of candidates governed by

differing judicial directions. The modified methodology was neither

arbitrary nor unilateral but represented a conscious attempt to

harmonise compliance with binding judicial orders, maintain uniform

standards of assessment, and ensure equal treatment to all

participating candidates. No material has been placed before this

Court demonstrating mala fides, procedural illegality or discrimination

warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction.

46. Equally, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the

recruitment process traces its origin to the year 1991 and ultimately

culminated in appointments made in the year 2015, pursuant to a

selection process conducted openly and under judicial scrutiny. The

selected candidates have since served for more than a decade and

continuation of litigation at this stage would neither advance fairness

nor serve the larger interest of finality in public employment.

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 18 of 21

47. On the contrary, reopening a settled recruitment would

perpetuate uncertainty and defeat institutional stability. The approach

adopted by the Respondents, therefore, represents a balanced and

equitable resolution intended to bring long-pending litigation to a

close rather than prolong it, and no justification exists for unsettling

the completed process.

48. Further, the reliance placed by the Petitioners upon the principle

that the “rules of the game” stood altered requires closer examination

in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Karunesh Kumar

(supra). The Supreme Court has clarified that the doctrine primarily

operates where a change introduced after commencement of

recruitment results in disqualifying candidates or altering eligibility

conditions so as to non-suit participants from consideration.

49. In the present case, no eligibility criterion was modified, no

candidate was rendered ineligible, excluded from participation, or

deprived of an opportunity to compete. All candidates, including the

Petitioners, participated, firstly in the screening test/written

examination, and thereafter in the same interview-based evaluation.

The alteration, therefore, related only to the mode of assessment and

not to qualification or eligibility.

50. Recruiting authorities must necessarily retain a degree of

administrative flexibility to evolve an appropriate selection

mechanism, particularly where compliance with prior judicial

directions and maintenance of uniform standards become imperative.

As observed by the Supreme Court in Karunesh Kumar (supra), an

overly rigid application of the doctrine would unnecessarily curtail the

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 19 of 21

employer‟s power to select suitable candidates.

51. We are therefore unable to hold that adoption of the present

recruitment process for deciding the final select list, in the peculiar

factual matrix obtaining herein, constitutes an impermissible alteration

vitiating the entire recruitment process.

52. The Petitioners have emphasised that the Tribunal itself

recorded inconsistency between the prescribed procedure and the

method adopted. In our view, such observation cannot be read in

isolation. The Tribunal proceeded to examine whether the deviation

stood justified in light of prior judicial directions and administrative

necessity, ultimately concluding that interference would unsettle a

completed selection undertaken uniformly for all candidates.

53. Judicial review in service matters is concerned not with

substitution of administrative wisdom but with examination of

arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of statutory mandate. The

Petitioners have neither alleged nor established mala fides, selective

treatment, or discrimination inter se candidates.

54. Equally significant is the fact that the Petitioners participated in

the selection process without protest and subjected themselves to the

interview-based assessment. Only upon being declared unsuccessful

did the challenge come to be mounted. The Supreme Court in Madan

Lal (supra) has unequivocally held that a candidate who takes a

calculated chance by participating in a selection process cannot

subsequently assail the procedure merely because the outcome is

unfavourable. Similar principles have been reiterated in K.H. Siraj

(supra) and Om Prakash Shukla (supra).

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 20 of 21

55. The contention of the Petitioners that they became aware of the

deviation only after declaration of results is not factually correct,

inasmuch as the Notification dated 27.11.2014 notifying the procedure

to be adopted was issued one month prior to the conduct of the

screening test. The interviews constituted the decisive stage of

evaluation and the Petitioners consciously participated therein without

raising any contemporaneous objection. Significantly, no prejudice

has been demonstrated to have been caused to the Petitioners on

account of the adoption of the said procedure. In the absence of any

such prejudice or demonstrable arbitrariness affecting the outcome of

the selection, the challenge cannot be sustained.

56. We also find merit in the submission of the Private Respondents

that preparation of a combined merit list through differing evaluation

standards would itself have generated inequality amongst candidates.

The decision to adopt a uniform criterion, approved at the highest

administrative level and placed before the Court in earlier

proceedings, cannot be characterised as arbitrary in the present case.

57. Interference at this stage would not merely unsettle a concluded

recruitment but would also adversely affect appointments made long

ago pursuant to a process conducted uniformly for all candidates.

Courts exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 must remain

mindful of the principle of institutional stability in public

administration.

CONCLUSION:

58. Having evaluated the matter, this Court is satisfied that the

Tribunal correctly appreciated the peculiar factual circumstances,

W.P,(C) 8454/2021 and connected matters Page 21 of 21

applied the governing legal principles, and declined interference for

cogent reasons. The Impugned Orders do not suffer from jurisdictional

error, perversity, or manifest illegality warranting interference in writ

jurisdiction.

59. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present Writ Petitions.

60. The present Writ Petitions are dismissed. Pending applications

stands closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN , J.

APRIL 08, 2026

sp/shah