https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468208 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. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Apr 2026 16:00:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468208 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468208