SC Upholds Appointments of 66 Medical Technologists; Orders Review of Selection Merits, Emphasizes Timely Judicial Action.

The SC partly allowed the appeals, affirming the protection of 66 candidates already appointed as Medical Technologists. It directed the State Government to consider the appellants' cases who had challenged the selection process, based on a merit list combining written and oral marks as per the HC's order. The SC dismissed applications from candidates who sought relief through interim applications, underscoring the necessity of timely judicial action. Despite a 559-day delay, the SC chose to hear the case, prioritizing larger interests over procedural delays.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the selection process for Medical Technologists.
2. Consideration of marks from both written examination and oral interview.
3. Validity of the Tribunal's and High Court's protection of already appointed candidates.
4. Delay and laches in approaching the Supreme Court.
5. Applicability of the doctrine of estoppel, waiver, or acquiescence.
6. Equitable relief for candidates who challenged the selection process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the selection process for Medical Technologists:

The selection process was challenged on the grounds that it was based solely on oral interviews, disregarding the written examination marks. The Tribunal initially set aside the merit list prepared solely on oral interview marks and directed a fresh list combining both written and oral marks. The High Court supported this view, stating that the selection process must consider marks from both written and oral tests to be valid.

2. Consideration of marks from both written examination and oral interview:

The Tribunal and the High Court both held that the merit list should be prepared based on the combined marks from written and oral tests. The High Court directed the State Government to prepare a fresh panel considering both sets of marks, with 40% as the qualifying mark. This decision was upheld, emphasizing that the written test was not merely an elimination test but part of the selection process.

3. Validity of the Tribunal's and High Court's protection of already appointed candidates:

The Tribunal and the High Court protected the appointments of 66 candidates who had already been appointed and were in service. The Tribunal reasoned that these candidates were not made parties to the original application and thus could not be affected without being heard. The High Court, in subsequent orders, continued this protection, stating that these candidates had gained experience and their removal would disrupt services.

4. Delay and laches in approaching the Supreme Court:

The appellants approached the Supreme Court after a significant delay of 559 days. The Court noted this delay but decided to hear the case on merits due to the larger interest involved. The Court emphasized that while delay and laches are important considerations, they would not dismiss the case solely on these grounds.

5. Applicability of the doctrine of estoppel, waiver, or acquiescence:

The respondents argued that the appellants, by participating in the selection process and then challenging it, were estopped from raising objections. The Court acknowledged this argument but decided to grant relief considering the overall circumstances and the interests of justice.

6. Equitable relief for candidates who challenged the selection process:

The Supreme Court granted relief to the appellants who had actively challenged the selection process, directing the State Government to consider their cases for appointment based on the merit list prepared as per the High Court's order. The Court clarified that this relief would not extend to candidates who had not challenged the selection process earlier and had approached the Court for the first time through interim applications.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, maintaining the protection of the 66 already appointed candidates and directing the State Government to consider the cases of the appellants who had challenged the selection process. The Court dismissed the applications of candidates who approached it for the first time through interim applications, emphasizing the importance of timely action in seeking judicial relief.

---