LI Network
Published on: 14 August 2023 at 18:00 IST
A recent observation by a Delhi High Court Bench, presided by Justice Jyoti Singh, underscores that the courts’ scrutiny in recruitment cases pertains to the decision-making process rather than the actual outcome of the decision.
The court highlighted that it falls beyond the purview of the courts, in a judicial review, to assess selection procedures. However, this principle comes with an exception when proven instances of malafides or statutory rules violations are evident.
The focus lies on examining the decision-making process rather than the final verdict, as elucidated by the Court.
The petitioner’s representation was advocated by Counsel Joby P Varghese and Counsel Upmanyu Sharma, while Central Government Standing Counsel Manisha Agrawal Narain was among the representatives for the respondents.
In this particular case, the petitioner filed two writ petitions seeking the annulment of a list of shortlisted candidates and the selection/recommendation list issued by the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB).
The petitioner also sought a mandamus to compel PESB to revise the list of shortlisted candidates and include the petitioner’s name for an interview for the specific post.
The court was tasked with delineating the relationship between Seniority Guidelines and a “preference clause” integrated into the advertisements as part of educational qualifications.
The judgment emphasized that courts aren’t appellate bodies for scrutinizing selection procedures. They must accord respect and consideration to recommendations and decisions made by expert bodies comprising professionals in the respective field. This principle applies to the preliminary stage of shortlisting as well.
The court stated that judicial restraint is particularly relevant when interfering with norms, procedures, and guidelines devised for shortlisting/selection and eligibility criteria set out in advertisements, which primarily fall under the employer’s jurisdiction.
Analyzing the advertisements, the court noted that they did not contemplate or establish a preference for candidates based on higher pay scales or board-level positions. It was further elucidated that educational qualifications aligned with the post’s nature and functional requisites. The prerogative to determine the prescribed or preferred qualifications rests with the employer, not the court.
Referring to the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, the court highlighted that judicial review shouldn’t extend the scope of established qualifications.
While setting qualifications, an employer can factor in various elements such as job nature, requisite skills, qualification functionality, and the curriculum leading to qualification acquisition. These considerations are matters of policy, and judicial review must tread cautiously.
In this light, the court held that under Article 226, it wasn’t suitable for the court to question the wisdom of PSEB’s decision.
Concerning seniority guidelines, the court asserted that applicants should meet the criteria of minimum pay scales and seniority based on them. Subsequently, shortlisting could solely rely on educational qualifications and experience, as contended by the respondents.
