The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reinforced the principle that public recruitment processes must adhere to procedural fairness, particularly when evaluating skill-based competencies. Where selection criteria are not objectively defined or communicated in advance, and no documentary or video evidence supports rejection, the resulting exclusion cannot stand.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Shakun Saini, applied for the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) at the respondent Institute, following an advertisement dated 03.11.2021. The selection process included document verification, a written test, and a skill/ground test. On 17.08.2022, the appellant received a call letter for the selection process to be held on 19.09.2022. The appellant appeared on the scheduled date, but was rejected on 23.09.2022 without any clear, documented, or objective basis for failing the skill test.
Key Facts
- Advertisement for PTI post issued on 03.11.2021
- Call letter for selection process issued on 17.08.2022, specifying date: 19.09.2022
- On 19.09.2022, only the appellant appeared among six shortlisted candidates
- Written test score: 59 marks (out of unspecified total)
- Skill/ground test was qualifying in nature
- No video recording of the skill test was maintained
- No written evaluation sheet, rubric, or objective parameters were produced by the Selection Committee
- Rejection order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-7) contained no reasoning, no scoring, and no criteria reference
- The parameters for the skill test were allegedly formulated on the day of the test, 19.09.2022
Procedural History
- 19.09.2022: Written and skill/ground tests conducted
- 23.09.2022: Appellant’s candidature rejected without explanation
- 04.01.2023: Writ Petition (CWP No.43 of 2023) filed before the Single Judge of HP High Court
- 28.11.2024: Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection order, and directed the Institute to re-test the appellant using objective, pre-communicated criteria
- 11.12.2024: Call letter issued to appellant for re-test on 21.12.2024, with new parameters
- 19.12.2024: Single Judge dismissed appellant’s contempt and execution petitions, holding the new parameters were objective and complied with the order
- 07.03.2024: Institute issued a fresh advertisement (No.IITMandi/Recruit./NTS/2024/02) for the same post, using identical parameters as those issued on 11.12.2024
- 07.11.2024: Order in CWP No.43 of 2023 referenced in appeal
- 28.03.2025: Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No.318 of 2025) filed challenging the Single Judge’s order
The Parties' Positions
Appellant’s Position: The skill test parameters were not disclosed in advance, were arbitrary, and no evidence existed to substantiate the rejection. The rejection violated principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution. The re-test parameters issued on 11.12.2024 were identical to those in the subsequent 07.03.2024 advertisement, indicating bad faith.
Respondents’ Position: The appellant failed the skill test, which was qualifying. Six candidates were shortlisted, but only the appellant appeared. The Selection Committee included two experts from IIT Kanpur and IIT Mandi. The parameters were formulated on the test day due to operational necessity. The revised parameters on 11.12.2024 were objective and complied with the court’s direction.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Quashing of the rejection order dated 23.09.2022
- Direction to re-conduct the skill test with objective, pre-notified criteria
- Video recording of the test
- Appointment of a neutral expert committee
- Appointment as PTI with all consequential benefits
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public recruitment body may reject a candidate in a skill-based selection process without pre-communicated, objective criteria, and without any verifiable record of evaluation, and whether the subsequent application of identical criteria in a fresh advertisement undermines the fairness of the process.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on State of U.P. v. Subhash Chandra and Union of India v. Rameshwar Prasad to argue that selection processes must be transparent, non-arbitrary, and based on pre-defined, objective standards. The absence of any documentation, video, or written assessment rendered the rejection void ab initio. The fact that the same criteria were reused in the 07.03.2024 advertisement demonstrated that the original test on 19.09.2022 was not merely flawed but deliberately opaque. The appellant contended that the Single Judge’s order was not fully complied with, as the new parameters were not framed as a fresh exercise but merely rebranded.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the skill test was qualifying and not merit-based, and thus required less rigour. They cited Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court to assert that criteria may be formulated on the day of the test if not previously fixed, provided they are not discriminatory. They emphasized the presence of two expert members on the Selection Committee and the fact that the appellant was given a second opportunity under the court’s direction. The re-test parameters were objective and communicated 10 days in advance, satisfying the court’s mandate.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench examined the Single Judge’s reasoning and the procedural record with particular attention to the absence of evidence supporting the rejection. The Court noted that the respondents admitted no video recording existed and no written evaluation sheet was maintained. The parameters for the skill test were allegedly formulated on 19.09.2022 - the very day of the test - which the Single Judge correctly found to be procedurally defective.
"The criteria was not per se objective. Except the bald assertion of the respondents... there was no material on record from which the same could be inferred."
The Court affirmed that in public employment, especially where physical skill is assessed, the burden lies on the employer to demonstrate fairness. The lack of documentation, combined with the unilateral formulation of criteria on the test day, violated the principles of audi alteram partem and Article 14. The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim of bad faith in reusing the criteria in the 07.03.2024 advertisement, observing that the new advertisement was issued after the court’s order and reflected compliance, not manipulation.
The Bench emphasized that the Single Judge’s directive to frame objective criteria was not a mandate to repeat the same flawed process, but to correct it. The fact that the appellant participated in the re-test under the revised parameters and did not challenge their objectivity before the court rendered his appeal moot. The Court held that once the relief sought in the writ petition - re-testing with objective, pre-notified criteria - was granted and implemented, the appellant ceased to be a person aggrieved.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the Single Judge’s order dated 28.11.2024, which quashed the rejection dated 23.09.2022 and directed the Institute to re-test the appellant using objective, pre-communicated criteria. The re-test conducted on 21.12.2024 under the parameters communicated on 11.12.2024 was found to be compliant. The appellant’s contempt and execution petitions were dismissed, and no further relief was granted. The Institute is not directed to appoint the appellant unless he qualifies in the re-test.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Objective Criteria Are Non-Negotiable in Skill-Based Recruitment
- Public employers must define and publish objective, measurable parameters for skill tests at least 15 days before the test date
- Vague or ad hoc criteria formulated on the day of testing are void under Article 14 and natural justice
- Absence of video or written evaluation records renders rejection legally unsustainable
Reuse of Criteria After Court Order Does Not Constitute Bad Faith
- If a revised set of criteria is objectively sound and communicated in advance, its reuse in a subsequent advertisement does not invalidate compliance
- Courts will not presume malice where the same parameters are applied uniformly to all candidates post-order
Participation in Re-Test Waives Objections to Process
- A candidate who voluntarily participates in a re-test under court-mandated conditions cannot later challenge the fairness of those conditions unless they are materially different or discriminatory
- The remedy of re-testing is exhausted upon participation; further litigation requires fresh grounds
