Sports-quota recruitment requires proof of arbitrariness or illegality; low merit score defeated the challenge to selection

In sports-quota recruitment, a candidate has no enforceable right to appointment unless the selection process is shown to be arbitrary, illegal or tainted by mala fides. The selection here was carried out through certificate verification, field trials and interview, with marks assigned for sports achievements and performance; the petitioner's score and rank remained below the relevant cut-off. Allegations of bias, nepotism and unequal treatment were unsupported by material showing defect in the shortlisting method, and the direction to disclose the shortlisting criteria was found legally unobjectionable. The writ challenge therefore failed and the selection process was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interference with the selection process for appointment under the sports quota and consequential appointment in the Income Tax Department.

Analysis: The selection was conducted through a structured process of certificate verification, field trials and interview, with allocation of marks for sports achievements and performance in the trials. The petitioner's score was substantially lower than the shortlisted candidates, and he stood below the cut-off rank for the relevant category. The challenge based on alleged bias, nepotism and unequal treatment was not supported by any material showing arbitrariness or illegality in the method adopted for shortlisting. The direction issued by the Tribunal to disclose the shortlisting criteria did not suffer from legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to appointment or to any interference with the selection process, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed and the Tribunal's order was upheld, leaving the selection process undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a merit-based recruitment process, a candidate has no enforceable right to appointment unless arbitrariness, illegality or mala fides in the selection procedure is established.

---