Mr. Varun Mudgil, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Eti Kushwaha Ms. Garima Anand, Advs v. INDIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ORS

Judgment

1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of advertisement no. EN 40/13 dated 03.01.2024 inviting applications for post of Assistant Director (Research). Further prayer is to quash the rejection of candidature of the petitioner. Direction is sought to respondent no.1 to consider the post-graduate score of 5.44 CGPA as high second class. 2. The brief facts are that on 03.01.2024 the advertisement of respondent no.1 invited applications for the post of Assistant Director (Research). The eligibility criteria was Master‟s Degree with High Second Class in any Social Science discipline from a recognized university or equivalent qualification and at least three years Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 18122/2025 Page 1 of 11 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:02.12.2025 10:52:38 experience in teaching, research in social science area and/or three year experience of research administration in a reputed organization and computer literacy was desirable.

2.1 The petitioner on 05.02.2024, applied in category of Other Backward Class – Non Creamy Layer (in short “OBC-NCL”) candidate. The provisional result of the computer based test and paper based test was declared on 17.06.2025, which was finalized by notice dated 04.07.2025. The petitioner was declared „not-eligible‟ for not having master‟s degree with high second class and for lack of required experience. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on

22.09.2025 and hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eligibility condition of master‟s degree with high second class is arbitrary and gives unbridled powers to the selection committee. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Avnish Tripathi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Writ Petition No. 12985 of 2021 and connected matters, decided on 17.03.2025. The argument is that it was not clarified in the advertisement that candidate should have scored minimum 55% marks in master‟s degree in order to qualify for high second class. It is contented that the university awarding master‟s degree to the petitioner was following grade system and there was no basis to reject the candidature of the petitioner for not possessing master‟s degree with high second class. 4. Per contra the petitioner after having participated in the selection process and on being unsuccessful cannot challenge the selection criteria. The submission is that the candidature of the Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 18122/2025 Page 2 of 11 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:02.12.2025 10:52:38

petitioner was rejected on two grounds:- firstly, for not possessing master‟s degree with high second class and secondly, for lack of required experience. The decision of the Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. reported as (2023) 17 SCC 147 is relied upon to contend that scope of interference in writ jurisdiction in a challenge to the selection criteria is limited. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. No other contentions apart from noted above have been pressed. 6. In result the petitioner was held to be “not eligible” for (i) lack of work experience in required field (ii) less than 55% in PG Degree. The petitioner possesses master‟s degree in English issued by Ambedkar University Delhi. The transcripts of grades of the petitioner in M.A English are reproduced below: “School of Liberal Studies Master of Arts in English Transcript of Grades Student‟s Name: Reena Yadav Enrolment Number : S153DEN32 Year of Enrolment : 2015 Course Code Course Title Credits Grade Academic year/Semester 2015-16 SLS2EN301 Semester 1 SLS2EN313 SLS2EN330 Literatures of Childhood Theories of Marginality and Culture Native American Literature 4 4 4 B Minus B Only B Minus 2015-16 Course Code Course Title SHS201752 Deconstructing Normalcy Credits Grade 4 A Minus Semester 2 SLS2EN305 Women Writing 4 B Minus Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 18122/2025 Page 3 of 11 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:02.12.2025 10:52:38 Academic year/Semeste r 2016-17 Course Code SLS2EN30 6 Semester 3 SLS2EN31 6 SLS2EN339 SLS2EN341 in India Literary Relations; Intertextuallty Folklore and Folkloristics 4 4 C Plus B Minus Course Title Credits Grade Revisiting All India Progressive Writers Association and Indian People‟s Theatre Association: 1930s, 1940s and 1950s Lost Generations: American Literature between the World Wars Literatures of Contact SLS2EN34 2 SLS2EN34 3 SLS2HS104 Environmental History Literatures of the Tribes of North-East India 4 4 4 4 4 B Only B Minus B Minus B Plus C Plus 2016-17 of South Asia Course Title Course Code SLS2CL104 Mahasweta Devi: Comparative Readings SLS2CL105 Reading Fantasy: C S Lewis and J R R Tolkien Classical Greek Literature The Women Question SLS2EN34 7 SLS2EN34 8 Credits Grade 4 4 4 4 B Only B Plus C Plus B Minus Overall Grade: B Minus Total Credits: 64 Overall Grade Point Average: 5.44 Total Credits Earned: 64 Completed the programme” Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 18122/2025 Page 4 of 11 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:02.12.2025 10:52:38 The transcript guide of the Ambedkar University is reproduced below and it stipulates that grade B Minus as per the grading system ranges to a grade more than or equal to 4.5 but less than 5.5. The qualitative description for grade B Minus is “Acceptable: showing moderate competence in some situations, minimal competence in others.” “For Students Admitted Prior to 2022-23 TRANSCRIPT GUIDE CREDIT: Each Credit in a taught course requires one hour of teaching or two hours of Seminar /Group Work/Laboratory Work/Field Work per week for 16 weeks. Letter grades A+ Grade Points 10 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 GRADING SYSTEM Grade Point Range Qualitative description Greater than or equal to 9.5 Greater than or equal to 8.5 but less than 9.5 Greater than or equal to 7.5 but less than 8.5 Greater than or equal to 6.5 but less than 7.5 Greater than or equal to 5.5 but less than 6.5 Greater than or equal to 4.5 but less than 5.5 Greater than or equal to 3.5 but less than 4.5 Greater than or equal to 2.5 but less than 3.5 Greater than or equal to 1.5 but less than 2.5 Exceptional: performance beyond expectations Excellent: demonstrating mastery of all learning or assessment situations Very good: demonstrating mastery of most learning or assessment situations Demonstrating thorough competence in most situations Demonstrating moderate competence in most situations Acceptable: showing moderate competence in some situations, minima) competence in others Minimally acceptable: demonstrating minimal competence in most situation while showing scope for improvement Not passing and showing considerable scope for improvement or development Unsatisfactory performance, marked by lack of engagement or inability to apply concepts Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 18122/2025 Page 5 of 11 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:02.12.2025 10:52:38 D F AB 1 0 0 Greater than or equal to 0.5 but less than 1.5 Less than 0.5 Absent Complete lack of engagement or comprehension Non-participation or invalid/blank answer Absent or withdrawn from a course  The 'passing grade' for each course is C plus.  This is a linear grade point scale ranging from 0 to 10 e.g. 6.4 can be considered equivalent to 64% or Grade B Can be considered to be equivalent to 55% and above but less than 65%.”

7. The petitioner aware of the eligibility criteria participated in the selection process and on being unsuccessful cannot challenge the criteria. The Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) considering the decisions in Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar reported as (2010) 12 SCC 576, Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi reported as (2013) 11 SCC 309 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar reported as (2017) 4 SCC 357 held that after having participated in the selection process, the candidate later cannot allege the process to be vitiated by lacuna in the process. “39. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 18122/2025 Page 6 of 11 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:02.12.2025 10:52:38 process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.”

8. It is not for courts to interfere in eligibility criteria set by expert body unless shown to be arbitrary or violating statutory provisions. The contention that possessing of Master‟s Degree with high second class accord unbridled discretion in determining eligibility of the candidate is ill founded in the fact of the present case. A look at grading system will show that the grades vary from A to D. The grades A to C are further sub divided in three parts that is Plus, Only and Minus. The student scoring grade „C only‟ is not passing. Grade „A‟ gives qualitative description of exceptional, excellent and very good. The petitioner has grade of „B Minus‟ i.e. just above minimal acceptable and showing moderate competence in some of situations. The petitioner is just one grade above the passing grade and cannot be treated to possess Master‟s Degree with High Second Class. Decision to accept grade „B‟ to be high second class is reasonable and not arbitrary. Moreover, it is for the experts to decide the eligibility criteria of a post like Asstt. Director for research and the writ court cannot deal with issue like an appellate authority. 9. The scope of interference the selection process well-settled. It would be fruitful to quote the portions of Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) wherein it was held that merits of selection process should be left to the experts and the interference of the Court should only be in case of violation of statutory rules, inherent arbitrariness, as follows: Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 18122/2025 Page 7 of 11 Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:02.12.2025 10:52:38 “31. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The courts recognise that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for courts to substitute their judgment for that of a Selection Committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a Selection Board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law.