In Brief
The appellant was selected as a Junior Lab Technician by a Selection Committee that weighted qualifying exam marks (85%), work experience (10%), and interview performance (5%), awarding him higher marks due to superior experience in government hospitals. The third respondent, who scored higher qualifying marks but had minimal relevant experience, challenged the appointment in a writ petition, claiming he was more meritorious. The High Court Division Bench quashed the appointment, holding the experience and interview criteria arbitrary as they were not explicitly mentioned in the original advertisement. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the scope of writ review was limited to the grounds actually raised (that he was more meritorious) and the court erred by examining the entire selection list to find arbitrariness in marks allotted to other candidates when only the appellant's selection was challenged.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.