SC Dismisses Appeal, Urges State to Revise Selection Rules for Fairness and Non-Arbitrariness in Public Service Exams.

The SC dismissed the appeal, underscoring the necessity for the State to amend selection rules to prevent favoritism and ensure fairness. The appellant's failure to include all necessary parties and participation in the selection process barred relief. The Court emphasized balancing written exams and interviews to maintain equality and non-arbitrariness in public service selections. The HC had earlier dismissed the writ petition due to non-joinder of all selected candidates, and the appellant's challenge was deemed untenable as they had participated in the process knowing its conditions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity/legality of the selection process for Assistant Registrars.
2. Non-joinder of necessary parties in the writ petition.
3. Appellant's participation in the selection process and subsequent challenge.
4. Legitimacy of selection based solely on viva voce tests.
5. Allegations of favoritism and nepotism in the selection process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity/Legality of the Selection Process:
The principal question raised was the validity/legality of the selection process for Assistant Registrars, a Class II gazetted post. The appellant, holding a Post Graduate degree and having 7 years of teaching experience, challenged the selection process conducted by the Public Service Commission based on an advertisement issued on 24.7.2003. The essential qualifications required were a postgraduate degree and work experience in teaching/administrative posts.

The selection was governed by the Madhya Pradesh State University Service Rules, 1982, particularly Rules 5 and 8(ii). Rule 5 outlined the methods of recruitment, including direct recruitment, promotion, and deputation. Rule 8(ii) allowed retrenched government or university employees to deduct their temporary service period from their age, up to a maximum limit of 7 years.

2. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties:
The appellant did not implead all 17 selected candidates in the writ petition, only Respondent Nos.3 and 4, against whom allegations of favoritism were made. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that all selected candidates were necessary parties, and their non-joinder rendered the petition non-maintainable. This principle was supported by the precedent set in Prabodh Verma & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., which emphasized the necessity of including all vitally concerned parties in such petitions.

3. Appellant's Participation in the Selection Process:
The High Court opined that the appellant, having participated in the selection process knowing the conditions of the advertisement, could not later question the process upon not being selected. This principle aligns with the legal doctrine that a candidate who participates in a selection process cannot subsequently challenge it if they are unsuccessful.

4. Legitimacy of Selection Based Solely on Viva Voce Tests:
The appellant argued that the 1982 Rules were ultra vires as they allowed selection based solely on viva voce tests, ignoring written examination marks and academic qualifications. The Supreme Court, referencing Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., observed that while interviews are relevant, they should not constitute a high percentage of the total marks due to potential for favoritism and subjectivity. The Court noted that the Commission's decision to use the written examination only for short-listing candidates, without considering the marks obtained, was not a fair exercise of power.

5. Allegations of Favoritism and Nepotism:
The appellant alleged favoritism and nepotism in favor of Respondent Nos.3 and 4. However, the High Court did not delve into these allegations, and the Supreme Court presumed that the issue was not pressed during the proceedings. Despite this, the Court highlighted the necessity for the State of Madhya Pradesh to amend the rules to prevent such allegations in the future, ensuring a fair and transparent selection process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need for the State to consider amending the selection rules to prevent favoritism and ensure fairness. The appellant's failure to implead all necessary parties and the participation in the selection process precluded any relief. The Court reiterated the importance of balancing written examinations and interviews to uphold the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness in public service selections.

---