Recruitment interview norms may be directory, and provisional participation alone does not vitiate selection without proven prejudice.

In recruitment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service, postponement of the interview and provisional participation of challenged candidates did not, by itself, establish mala fides, illegality, or prejudice where the original interview list was unchanged. The prescribed 25 to 30 minute interview duration in Appendix G was treated as directory, because the Rules did not attach any consequence to a shorter interview and the candidates were still assessed by expert boards. A revised select list and final result based on later binding legal developments was also sustained, since no fresh marking manipulation or legal basis for invalidation was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether postponement of the interview and the participation of candidates who were under challenge, including provisional participation in the interview, vitiated the selection process on the grounds of mala fides or illegality; (ii) Whether the prescribed interview duration of 25 to 30 minutes under Appendix G to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 was mandatory, and whether the interview process was invalid because the petitioners were interviewed for a shorter time; (iii) Whether the revised select list and final result suffered from illegality on account of the provisional result, later revision, and exclusion or inclusion of candidates.

Issue (i): Whether postponement of the interview and the participation of candidates who were under challenge, including provisional participation in the interview, vitiated the selection process on the grounds of mala fides or illegality.

Analysis: The postponement of the interview by one week did not by itself establish mala fides or unfairness, especially when no candidate was shown to have been added to or removed from the list of persons originally called for interview. The interim orders in the pending proceedings permitted certain candidates to participate provisionally in the main examination, and the Committee's administrative resolution allowing them to appear in the interview was found consistent with those orders. The selection process remained provisional as to those candidates, and no prejudice to the petitioners was shown from that arrangement.

Conclusion: The challenge based on mala fides, postponement, and provisional participation failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the prescribed interview duration of 25 to 30 minutes under Appendix G to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 was mandatory, and whether the interview process was invalid because the petitioners were interviewed for a shorter time.

Analysis: Rule 18 and Appendix G were read together to hold that the interview is part of the main examination, but the note prescribing 25 to 30 minutes was only indicative. Since the Rules did not prescribe any consequence for a shorter interview, the time stipulation was treated as directory and not mandatory. The candidates were assessed by expert interview boards on their suitability, and no pleading or material established that the petitioners were denied a meaningful assessment or that the boards acted arbitrarily or unscientifically.

Conclusion: The challenge to the interview process on the ground of inadequate duration was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the revised select list and final result suffered from illegality on account of the provisional result, later revision, and exclusion or inclusion of candidates.

Analysis: The provisional result was revised after later binding developments in the law, including the exclusion of judicial officers found ineligible under the governing principles applicable to direct recruitment. The final result reflected the revised merit position and category-wise selection without any fresh award of marks. The record showed no pattern of blanket marking, no proof of manipulation, and no legal basis to invalidate the revised select list merely because certain candidates had earlier participated provisionally or because the petitioners relied on parity with candidates who benefited from extraordinary constitutional relief in other proceedings.

Conclusion: The revised select list and final result were upheld.

Final Conclusion: No illegality, arbitrariness, or patent irregularity in the selection process was established. The writ petition was liable to fail in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural prescription in recruitment rules will be treated as directory where the rules do not attach a consequence for non-compliance, and a selection made by expert bodies will not be interfered with absent clear proof of mala fides, arbitrariness, or legal prejudice.

---