Necessary parties in recruitment challenges and fair weight to written merit versus interview in public selection

A writ challenge to a recruitment selection could not be effectively maintained where all selected candidates, whose appointments would be directly affected, were not impleaded as necessary parties. In public recruitment, where the rules contemplated a written test and the written examination was used for shortlisting, the final selection could not be based only on viva voce while ignoring written marks and academic merit. Such an approach was described as inconsistent with equality and non-arbitrariness and as creating scope for favoritism or nepotism. The document states that the recruitment method was deficient, but no operative relief could follow because the selected candidates were not before the Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the selection was liable to fail for non-joinder of all selected candidates as necessary parties. (ii) Whether selection for the post could rest substantially on interview without giving due weight to the written examination and academic merit.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the selection was liable to fail for non-joinder of all selected candidates as necessary parties.

Analysis: The selection had resulted in appointment of 17 candidates, and the challenge, if successful, would have directly affected their rights. Since all selected candidates were not impleaded and no proper representative proceeding was instituted, the challenge could not be effectively adjudicated in their absence. Candidates whose appointments were liable to be set aside were necessary, or at least proper, parties.

Conclusion: The challenge was not maintainable for want of necessary parties, and no relief could be granted to the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether selection for the post could rest substantially on interview without giving due weight to the written examination and academic merit.

Analysis: The post required assessment of academic qualification, experience and other abilities, and the rules permitted a written examination. The written test had in fact been held, but only for shortlisting, while the final selection was made on interview alone. The Court held that in such a recruitment process, ignoring the marks obtained in the written examination was not a fair exercise of power and did not conform to the constitutional requirements of equality and non-arbitrariness. The Court also indicated that the rules ought to be suitably amended to reduce the scope for favoritism or nepotism.

Conclusion: Selection based only on viva voce, while disregarding the written examination marks, was found to be unsatisfactory and inconsistent with the governing constitutional principles.

Final Conclusion: Although the recruitment method was found deficient and susceptible to arbitrariness, the appeal failed because the selected candidates were not before the Court, so no operative relief could be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to selections that would affect appointed candidates cannot succeed without impleading those candidates, and in public recruitment where a written test is held and is relevant to merit, interview alone should not be used to ignore the written marks.

---