Recruitment procedure and provisional participation upheld where no mala fides, prejudice, or mandatory interview breach was shown.

Postponement of the interview by one week and provisional participation of some candidates did not vitiate the recruitment, because no material showed manipulation, undue advantage, mala fides or prejudice, and the interim orders were followed. Appendix G's indication that interviews should ordinarily last 25 to 30 minutes was held directory, not mandatory, since the rule prescribed no consequence for shorter interviews; the record also showed that the boards awarded varied marks, defeating any claim of mechanical marking or warrant for judicial moderation. The revised select list and inclusion of provisionally permitted candidates were upheld as lawful, and no arbitrariness in the selection process was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the postponement of the interview and the consequent participation of certain candidates on a provisional basis vitiated the selection process on the grounds of mala fides or illegality; (ii) Whether the interview requirement in Appendix G was mandatory so as to invalidate the selection for want of a minimum interview duration or justify moderation of marks; (iii) Whether the inclusion of provisionally permitted candidates and the later revision of the select list were illegal.

Issue (i): Whether the postponement of the interview and the consequent participation of certain candidates on a provisional basis vitiated the selection process on the grounds of mala fides or illegality.

Analysis: The interview was postponed only by one week, and no material showed that any candidate was added or deleted from the list called for interview, or that any individual gained undue advantage. The provisional participation of candidates covered by interim judicial orders was in conformity with those orders and with the Committee's administrative resolution. The Court found no credible basis to infer mala fides, manipulation, or prejudice to the petitioners.

Conclusion: The challenge to the postponement and provisional participation failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the interview requirement in Appendix G was mandatory so as to invalidate the selection for want of a minimum interview duration or justify moderation of marks.

Analysis: Rule 18 treats the written examination and interview as distinct stages, while Appendix G provides only a guideline that the interview should ordinarily take 25 to 30 minutes. In the absence of any prescribed consequence for shorter interviews, the time indication was held directory and not mandatory. The original record showed that the two interview boards awarded varied marks to candidates, which negatived the claim that all candidates were mechanically awarded the same qualifying marks. No foundation was laid for judicial moderation or scaling of interview marks.

Conclusion: The plea for invalidation of the interview process or moderation of marks was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the inclusion of provisionally permitted candidates and the later revision of the select list were illegal.

Analysis: The interim orders of the higher courts permitted certain candidates to participate provisionally in the main examination, which included the interview stage, and the Committee acted within that framework. The later revision of the select list followed the subsequent legal position, including the exclusion of ineligible judicial officers and the effect of the Supreme Court's orders in the concerned matters. The Court also held that the extraordinary relief granted under Article 142 in favour of some candidates could not be treated as a precedent or as a source of parity for the petitioners.

Conclusion: The revised select list and the provisional inclusion of those candidates were held to be lawful.

Final Conclusion: No illegality or arbitrariness was established in the recruitment process, and the writ petition was held to be without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural prescription in recruitment rules will be treated as directory, not mandatory, where no consequence for non-compliance is provided and the selection record does not disclose arbitrariness, mala fides, or prejudice; interim judicial orders permitting provisional participation must be given effect according to their terms, and extraordinary relief under Article 142 cannot be claimed as a precedent-based entitlement by others.

---