Court Rules Judicial Review of Selection Limited to Bias or Malafides; Preference for Local Candidates Applies Only When Merits Are Equal
In a significant judgment dated September 10, 2026, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, dismissed the writ petition filed by Manju Devi challenging the selection of Gitanjali as Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT) in Political Science at Govt. Senior Secondary School (GSSS) Gai Ghat, Solan district. The petitioner contended that despite being a local eligible candidate, she was denied appointment, alleging unfair awarding of marks during the interview process.
The Court meticulously examined the entire selection procedure conducted under the School Management Committee (SMC) Policy notified by the State Government on July 17, 2012, and amended on August 16, 2014. The selection committee, comprising the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as Chairman, President of the SMC, and the Head of Institution, conducted interviews on October 31, 2014, where 23 candidates, including the petitioner and respondent, appeared.
The petitioner's core grievances were twofold: first, the allegedly arbitrary and disproportionate distribution of interview marks-she received 2.33 out of 10, while the selected candidate scored 9.5; second, her claim of preferential appointment rights as a local candidate under Para 5 of the SMC Policy.
Rejecting the claim for judicial reassessment of interview marks, the Court held that it is not within judicial competence to re-evaluate the comparative merits or marks awarded by an expert selection committee unless there is clear proof of bias, malafides, or violation of statutory rules or policies. Citing Supreme Court precedents including Durga Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1997), Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan (1990), Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1995), Union of Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya (2018), and Mohd. Mustafa v. Union of India (2022), the Court reiterated that the expert selection committee's judgment on merit is final barring exceptional circumstances.
Further, the Court pointed out that the petitioner had already been awarded full marks (10 out of 10) for belonging to the local Patwar Circle, negating any further claim for preference. The principle of preference applies only when candidates have equal merit. Since the selected candidate had a higher aggregate score (30.52) compared to the petitioner's (30.33), preference could not override merit. The Court emphasized that disregarding merit in favor of preference would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality and non-arbitrariness in public employment.
The petitioner also relied on a previous judgment in Santosh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2016) where a similar selection was set aside. However, the Court distinguished that case due to proven bias and irregularities in the selection process, which were absent here. The Court found no evidence of manipulation or favoritism in the present case.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the selection of Gitanjali, affirmed her appointment, and dismissed the writ petition. It clarified that mere dissatisfaction with interview marks or non-selection does not entitle a candidate to judicial intervention absent proof of illegality. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
This judgment reinforces the legal principle that courts will not act as appellate bodies over expert selection committees and that judicial review in service matters is circumscribed to cases of procedural irregularity, bias, or malafides.
Bottom Line:
Judicial review of selection process is limited to cases where bias, malafides, or violation of statutory rules or policies are established. Courts cannot reassess comparative merit or marks awarded by expert selection committees.
Statutory provision(s):
School Management Committee (SMC) Policy notified on 17.07.2012, amended 16.08.2014; Article 14 and Article 16, Constitution of India
Manju Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (HP) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981964
