Courts Cannot Reassess Interview Marks Or Comparative Merit Absent Proven Mala Fides Or Bias: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that judicial reassessment of comparative merit, including marks awarded in an interview by a duly constituted Selection Committee, is impermissible in the absence of mala fides, bias or violation of statutory rules or the applicable policy.
The Court observed that merely because an unsuccessful candidate was awarded fewer interview marks, the Court cannot assume the role of an expert or Selection Committee and re-evaluate the candidates' relative merit.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Even judicial re-assessment of comparative merit, including award of marks in Interview, by a duly constituted Selection Committee does not fall within the domain of this Court. Moreover, the Selection Committee had awarded marks to candidates in terms of seven parameters out of a total 60 marks, as per the SMC Scheme-Policy.”
Background:
Manju Devi challenged the selection and appointment of Gitanjali as a Post-Graduate Teacher (Political Science) at Government Senior Secondary School, Gai Ghat, Solan, pursuant to the SMC Policy.
The petitioner contended that despite being a local eligible candidate, she was not given preference and was awarded only 2.33 marks out of 10 in the interview, as against 9.5 marks awarded to Gitanjali.
The State defended the selection, stating that it was made by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the prescribed criteria and that Gitanjali secured higher overall merit of 30.52 marks, compared to the petitioner's 30.33 marks.
The Court held that reassessment of interview marks or comparative merit is not permissible in writ jurisdiction unless the selection process is vitiated by mala fides, bias, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory rules or the SMC Policy.
The Court found that Gitanjali had higher overall merit (30.52) than the petitioner (30.33), including higher marks in Graduation, B.Ed. and Post-Graduation. The petitioner's local-candidate status had already been accounted for by awarding her 10 marks under the concerned Patwar Circle criterion.
The Court held that local preference could not override comparative merit where the candidates were not equal in merit.
Finding no violation of the applicable policy, mala fides, bias or favouritism, the Court upheld Gitanjali's selection and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Name: Manju Devi v/s State of H.P. & others
Case No.: CWP No.1077 of 2015
Date of Decision: 10.09.2026