https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199832 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SC held that the later Government Order dated 27.02.1999 governed the selection process for departmental candidates and superseded the earlier procedure in Paragraph 445 on the number of candidates to be called for interview.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. en-us Mon, 11 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:12:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199832 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SC held that the later Government Order dated 27.02.1999 governed the selection process for departmental candidates and superseded the earlier procedure in Paragraph 445 on the number of candidates to be called for interview.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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199832