While a written examination objectively tests a candidate’s academic legal knowledge, a viva-voce brings out essential intellectual and personal qualities. A rule prescribing a minimum cut-off in an interview is binding upon all candidates who willingly participate. Manoj having failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce, has no vested right to appointment. There are undoubtedly numerous other candidates who accepted their disqualification and moved on with their lives. If this Court were to suddenly declare the cut-off as invalid and direct appointments, it would fundamentally alter the rules of the game. Acceding to Manoj’s prayers would effectively open a Pandora’s Box. The administrative machinery of High Court and State would be paralyzed by the need to unscramble a finalized recruitment egg.
– Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Manoj Goyal v. Rajasthan High Court, [Civil Appeal No. 8142 of 2018] decided on 13.07.2026.
_____
Though a candidate for a post cannot ordinarily challenge the process of selection where he has participated without objection, law is well-settled, he can do so in a situation where arbitrariness/illegality in the selection process is writ large. After all, a candidate while agreeing to participate in a selection process can neither expect an illegality to be pressed into service to rule out his candidature nor can he be said to have accepted an illegality in it.
– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P., [Civil Appeal Nos. 8257-8259 of 2026] decided on 24.07.2026.
