Later Government Order controls selection procedure; belated challenge after participation fails, and interview marking irregularities do not vitiate selection.

The SC held that the later Government Order dated 27.02.1999 governed the selection process for departmental candidates and superseded the earlier procedure in Paragraph 445 on the number of candidates to be called for interview. It also held that candidates who took part without timely objection could not challenge the procedure only after the result went against them. Finally, the absence of sealed cover procedure and the use of consolidated interview marking did not vitiate the selection, in the absence of mandatory requirement, mala fides, oblique motive, or miscarriage of justice. The selection was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Paragraph 445 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, 1976 governed the number of candidates to be called for interview or whether the Government Order dated 27.02.1999 superseded the earlier procedure. (ii) Whether candidates who participated in the selection process without objection could challenge the procedure after the result was declared. (iii) Whether non-adoption of sealed cover procedure and consolidated marking by the interview panel vitiated the selection.

Issue (i): Whether Paragraph 445 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, 1976 governed the number of candidates to be called for interview or whether the Government Order dated 27.02.1999 superseded the earlier procedure.

Analysis: The procedure for selecting departmental candidates to the post of Sub-Inspector was altered by successive Government Orders. Paragraph 445 contemplated a different method, including a limit of about four times the vacancies for interview, whereas the Government Order dated 27.02.1999 expressly superseded the earlier order and required all candidates securing the prescribed marks in the main written examination to be called for interview. The two regimes could not co-exist on this aspect, and the later order controlled the selection.

Conclusion: The later Government Order governed the selection procedure and Paragraph 445 did not prevail on the issue of calling candidates for interview.

Issue (ii): Whether candidates who participated in the selection process without objection could challenge the procedure after the result was declared.

Analysis: The candidates took part in the interview process and raised no timely objection. The challenge was brought only after the result went against them. A candidate cannot participate in a selection process, await the outcome, and then assail the procedure if unsuccessful. Such conduct attracts the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time.

Conclusion: The post-result challenge to the procedure was not maintainable against the respondent selection process.

Issue (iii): Whether non-adoption of sealed cover procedure and consolidated marking by the interview panel vitiated the selection.

Analysis: The sealed cover procedure was not shown to be mandatory under the governing order of 27.02.1999, and no prejudice was established. As to interview marking, although separate marking by each panelist would better demonstrate independent application of mind, consolidated marking by itself does not invalidate the process in the absence of mala fides, oblique motive, or miscarriage of justice. The Court also applied the principle of judicial restraint in matters of selection methodology.

Conclusion: Neither the absence of sealed cover procedure nor consolidated interview marking warranted interference with the selection.

Final Conclusion: The selection process was upheld in substance, no legal infirmity warranting interference was established, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later Government Order expressly supersedes an earlier selection procedure, the later order governs; participation in the process without timely objection bars a belated challenge, and courts will not interfere with the selection method absent proven mala fides, oblique motive, or miscarriage of justice.

---