Viva voce weightage in judicial recruitment upheld where no arbitrariness was shown; unsuccessful candidate barred from later challenge.

The Supreme Court held that allocating 200 marks for viva voce against 850 marks for the written examination in Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) recruitment was not, by itself, arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16, because interview weightage depends on the nature of the service, candidate qualifications, and the judgment of the recruiting body. It also applied the principle that a candidate who knowingly participates in a selection process without protest cannot, after failing, challenge the criteria; the petitioner was therefore barred by estoppel and denied relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether earmarking 200 marks for viva voce test against 850 marks for written examination for recruitment to the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) was unconstitutional as being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether a candidate who participated in the selection process without protest could later challenge the selection criteria after being unsuccessful.

Issue (i): Whether earmarking 200 marks for viva voce test against 850 marks for written examination for recruitment to the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) was unconstitutional as being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The allocation of marks for interview was examined in the light of settled precedent holding that the weight to be given to viva voce depends on the nature of the service, the qualifications of candidates, and the judgment of expert recruiting bodies. The Court noted that higher interview weightage is not, by itself, unconstitutional and that interference is warranted only where the prescription is shown to be excessive in a manner that introduces arbitrariness or unfairness. Applying that approach, the Court found no constitutional infirmity in the ratio of viva voce marks to written marks fixed for judicial service recruitment.

Conclusion: The prescription of 200 marks for viva voce did not violate Articles 14 and 16 and was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether a candidate who participated in the selection process without protest could later challenge the selection criteria after being unsuccessful.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that a candidate who knowingly takes part in a selection process under the declared criteria cannot, after failure, turn around and challenge those very criteria. Since the petitioner had accepted the process, appeared in the examination and interview, and raised the grievance only after not finding his name in the merit list, his conduct attracted the bar of estoppel and disentitled him to relief in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was barred from challenging the selection criteria after participation and failure.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the recruitment criteria and selection process failed on merits and on conduct, and the petition was not entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: In recruitment matters, the allocation of viva voce marks will not be struck down absent arbitrariness or excessive weightage, and a candidate who participates in the selection process with knowledge of the criteria cannot challenge them after an unsuccessful result.

---