Limited judicial review of selection decisions bars re-appreciation of comparative merit, leaving only illegality, irregularity, or mala fides.

Judicial or quasi-judicial interference with a duly constituted Selection Committee's assessment of candidates is limited to cases of illegality, patent irregularity, or mala fides, and does not extend to re-appreciation of comparative merit or suitability for appointment. The Tribunal exceeded that limited review by independently judging the candidates' relative merits as though sitting in appeal over the Selection Committee, without identifying any other defect in the selection process. On that basis, the interference was held unsustainable and the selection could not be quashed on comparative merit alone; the matter was remitted for fresh disposal on the remaining issues in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could quash the selection of the appellants by independently assessing the comparative merits and suitability of the candidates.

Analysis: The selection was made by a duly constituted Selection Committee acting within its domain of expertise. Judicial or quasi-judicial interference with such a selection is confined to limited grounds such as illegality, patent irregularity, or mala fides, and does not extend to re-appreciation of comparative merit or fitness for appointment. The Tribunal, however, proceeded to judge the candidates' relative merits as if it were an appellate authority over the Selection Committee, without finding any other infirmity in the selection process.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's interference was unsustainable and the selection could not be quashed on the ground of comparative merit assessment. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal on other issues in accordance with law.

---