Tripura High Court Upholds Selection of Assistant Director by Tripura Public Service Commission: Judicial Review Under Article 226 Cannot Overrule Expert Assessments Without Proven Malafides or Violations

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Tripura dismissed the writ petition challenging the selection process for the post of Assistant Director in the Directorate of Sainik Welfare. The court held that:

1. Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited and cannot be used to overrule expert assessments unless allegations of bias, malafides, or violations of statutory rules are substantiated.
2. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest malafides, favoritism, or arbitrary evaluation by the Selection Committee.
3. The viva-voce process was conducted within the bounds of fairness and expertise, and the petitioner’s claims lacked merit.

Facts:

1. Advertisement and Application:
   • Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC) advertised the post of Assistant Director, Group-B Gazetted, under the Directorate of Sainik Welfare.
   • The petitioner applied and participated in the selection process, alongside other eligible candidates.
2. Selection Process:
   • The selection involved an Academic Performance Index (API) score (weighted 85%) and a viva-voce test (weighted 15%).
   • The petitioner had the highest API score (100 marks), compared to the selected candidate’s score of 90 marks. However, in the viva-voce test, the selected candidate scored 14 out of 15, while the petitioner received only 5.
3. Merit List:
   • The final selection was based on the total scores. The selected candidate scored 90.50 marks overall, marginally surpassing the petitioner’s score of 90 marks.
4. Petition:
   • Dissatisfied with the results, the petitioner filed a writ petition, alleging that the marks awarded in the viva-voce were arbitrary and disproportionate.

Issues:

1. Whether the marks awarded in the viva-voce test were arbitrary and unjustified.
2. Whether the court could interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee under its judicial review powers.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Excessive Marks Awarded:
   • The petitioner argued that the selected candidate’s viva-voce score (14 out of 15) was excessively high, while his score (5 out of 15) was disproportionately low.
2. Bias in Evaluation:
   • He claimed that the Selection Committee acted arbitrarily in evaluating his performance.
3. Transparency in Interviews:
   • He suggested that the absence of CCTV cameras during the interview process indicated a lack of transparency.

Respondents’ Arguments:

TPSC and State:

1. Merit-Based Selection:
   • They asserted that the selection process was entirely merit-based and in line with established procedures.
   • The marks awarded in the viva-voce were reflective of the candidates’ performance as assessed by experts.
2. Limited Judicial Review:
   • Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J&K, the respondents argued that courts cannot interfere in matters of selection unless bias, malafides, or statutory violations are proven.

Selected Candidate:

1. Support for Evaluation:
   • The selected candidate presented a tabulated API score and performance chart, demonstrating her qualification and suitability for the position.
   • Her counsel argued that the petitioner’s low viva-voce marks reflected his actual performance and were not arbitrary.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Scope of Judicial Review:
   • The court reaffirmed that judicial review of selection processes is limited to cases where malafides, favoritism, or procedural violations are established. Absent such factors, the courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of the expert Selection Committee.
2. Evaluation by Experts:
   • Referring to Madan Lal v. State of J&K, the court noted that the assessment of candidates is within the exclusive domain of expert committees, and courts should avoid acting as appellate bodies over such evaluations.
3. Previous Precedent:
   • The court cited Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J&K, emphasizing that allegations of bias or unfairness must be substantiated with clear evidence. It reiterated that courts cannot interfere in the subjective evaluation of candidates unless procedural flaws are evident.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995):
   • The Supreme Court held that selection committees have the exclusive authority to assess candidates’ merits and award marks. Courts should not act as appellate authorities over such assessments.
2. Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J&K (2023):
   • The Supreme Court observed that courts should refrain from questioning the judgment of selection panels unless there are proven allegations of malafides or statutory violations. The allocation of 20% of marks to viva-voce was deemed reasonable and not excessive.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Lack of Substantiation:
   • The petitioner’s claim that the viva-voce marks were arbitrarily awarded lacked evidence. There were no allegations of bias or favoritism against the Selection Committee.
2. Expert Domain:
   • The court held that the evaluation of intellectual ability, leadership, and moral integrity during interviews is best left to experts. Judicial interference in these matters would undermine the panel’s expertise.
3. Transparency Allegation:
   • The court dismissed the petitioner’s argument regarding the absence of CCTV cameras during interviews, stating that it was irrelevant to the petition’s merits.
4. Final Merit List:
   • The court found that the marks were allocated based on a rational and fair process, leading to a merit-based selection.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that:

1. The selection process was transparent and merit-based.
2. The petitioner failed to establish any case of malafides, favoritism, or arbitrariness in the viva-voce evaluation.
3. The decision of the Selection Committee could not be overturned without substantive evidence of procedural irregularities.

Implications:

1. Reaffirmation of Limited Judicial Review:
   • The judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not act as appellate bodies in recruitment processes conducted by expert panels unless clear evidence of procedural flaws is presented.
2. Importance of Evidence:
   • Candidates challenging selection processes must provide concrete evidence of irregularities to seek judicial intervention.
3. Deference to Expertise:
   • The decision underscores the deference courts must give to the expertise and judgment of selection committees in evaluating candidates’ suitability.

Also Read – Kerala High Court Orders Range Forest Officer to Act on Rubber Tree Cutting Application Within Two Months, Emphasizes Importance of Timely Decisions for Agricultural Replantation