Non-Disclosure of Selection Criteria In Advance Doesn't Automatically Disqualify Process, As Long Criteria Is Fair: J&K High Court

The court, however, emphasized the importance of employers disclosing and notifying the selection criteria in advance. This proactive measure ensures that candidates participating in the selection process are fully aware of the yardstick that will be used to make selections.

“Ordinarily, the employer should disclose/notify the selection criteria in advance, so that the candidates, participating in the selection process, are aware of the yardstick that is going to be adopted for making selection. This would bring transparency and enhance public trust in the selection process”, Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed.

The case involved Petitioner Simranjeet Singh, who challenged the selection of Respondents Parveen Kumar and Sanjay Nath for the post of Engineer Equipment Mechanic (EEM) with the Indian Army. Singh argued that the selection process lacked transparency because the criteria for selection were not revealed beforehand.

He further contended that his experience and higher qualification (diploma) were not considered, while the selected candidates, despite lacking the requisite ITI certificate, were appointed.

The Court acknowledged that ideally, employers should disclose selection criteria upfront to ensure transparency. However, Justice Kumar emphasized that the absence of such disclosure alone wouldn't be enough to overturn the selection process, provided the applied criteria were fair, just, and reasonable.

“Non-disclosure of the selection criteria in advance before initiating the selection process would not alone be sufficient to vitiate the selection process if the criteria applied is ultimately found to be just, fair and reasonable”, the bench remarked.

In this case, the Court found that the selection was based solely on the written exam's merit and no interview was conducted as part of the selection process and this in turn had obviated any opportunity of arbitrariness in the selection process.

Furthermore, since Singh didn't challenge the exam's conduct and secured lower marks than the selected candidates, the Court asked him to gracefully accept the result.

While dismissing the petitioner's claims the bench affirmed the selection of respondents as fair and valid and highlighted that both candidates possessed the required ITI certification, as evidenced by the selection records.

However, in a nod to fairness, the court ordered that if any selected candidate declined the appointment, Simranjeet Singh, placed first in the waitlist, should be considered for the position.

Case Title: Simranjeet Singh Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment