High Court Rejects Challenge To Haryana Assistant District Attorney Recruitment, Says Candidate Can't Question Interview Process After Failing

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a candidate who was not selected for the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) in Haryana. She had alleged that the 4.24 marks out of 12.5 she was given in the interview were arbitrary and unexplained.

Justice Nidhi Gupta held that a candidate who takes part in a selection process without objection cannot challenge it after failing to be selected. The Court also held that it cannot sit in appeal over an interview board's assessment.

“A candidate who participates in the selection process without demur cannot, when confronted with an adverse consequence, turn round and question the criteria or supply her own,” said the Court.

On 08.08.2025, the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) advertised 255 posts of ADA (Group-B). The petitioner, a General category candidate, took the following stages, she cleared the Screening Test, she scored 42 out of 87.5 in the Subject Knowledge Test (SKT), her documents were verified and she was interviewed.

Her name did not appear in the final result of 22.10.2026, which recommended 245 candidates.

She sought several reliefs quashing of the final result, production of the interview board's criteria, its member-wise evaluation sheets, its minutes and any audio-video recordings, a fresh interview before a differently constituted board, fully recorded on video and assessed on criteria disclosed in advance.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted she was “not challenging the method of selection as advertised”, but was aggrieved by the “arbitrary marks awarded to her in interview” and the failure to disclose the interview criteria. 

HPSC argued that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the interview process, and pointed out that the petitioner had not alleged mala fides against the interview board.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh. That decision holds that an aspirant who participates without raising any objection and “takes a calculated chance of selection” cannot ordinarily challenge the terms later after being unsuccessful. Applying it, the Court held:

“Admittedly, petitioner had participated in the selection process and had remained unsuccessful in the interview vide Final Result dated 22.10.2026 (Annexure P-9). As such, it is now not open to the petitioner to assail the same,” it added.

The Court then relied on Madan Lal, where the Supreme Court held, “It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.”

In Madan Lal, the Supreme Court had also rejected the argument that candidates who did better in the written test should have received more marks at the interview, calling it “the realm of mere suspicion having no factual basis”. It said this was especially so where “there is not even a whisper in the petition about any personal bias of the Members of the Interview Committee”.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Abhishek Kumar Premi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Suneel Ranga, D.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Gursher Singh Bhandal and Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocates for respondent No.2-HPSC.