We endorse Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud’s opinion in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balram Bahira, (2017) 8 SCC 670 where Court has noted responsibility of Courts to guard against fraudulent employment.

The workmen here, having hoodwinked a Government Undertaking in a fraudulent manner, must be prevented from enjoying fruits of their ill-gotten advantage. The sanctity of public employment, as a measure of social welfare and a significant source of social mobility, must be protected against such fraudulent process which manipulates and corrupts the selection process. To abuse the legitimate process would mean deprivation of employment benefits to rightful beneficiaries. Courts must strive to ensure, employment programmes are not manipulated by deceitful middlemen, thereby setting up a parallel mechanism of Faustian Bargain.

– Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Employers v. Janta Mazdoor Sangh, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29873 of 2016].

Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434; Om Prakash Poplai v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 117; Secy. (Health) Deptt. of Health & F.W. v. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282; M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission, (2008) 2 SCC 119.

Courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us. The inexorable conclusion is, it is not within domain of Courts. Only in cases of inherent arbitrariness, can Courts intervene.

– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. Jammu and Kashmir, [Civil Appeal Nos. 2164-2172 of 2023] decided on 28.03.2023.

_____

Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 observed, interference in a selection process for public employment should generally be avoided, recognizing importance of maintaining autonomy and integrity of a selection process.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar, Deependra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5817 of 2023] decided on 01.05.2024. 

_____

Hon’ble S.H. Kapadia J (as Chief Justice of India) in Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India, (2009) 8 SCC 273 neatly delineated applicability of judicial review in cases of ‘eligibility’ and ‘suitability’. “When ‘eligibility’ is put in question, it could fall within scope of judicial review. However, question as to who should be elevated, which essentially involves ‘suitability’, stands excluded from purview of judicial review.”

There can be no gainsaying, interference should be limited, particularly when a merit review is sought as in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344. Tajvir Singh Sodhi does acknowledge, interference could still be made if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, laying bare inherent arbitrariness.

Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, Learned Additional Solicitor General appealed to our conscience. Having regard to Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 it amounts to a fraud on public to make appointments in departure of either statutory requirements or a public advertisement. Fraud unravels everything. We are afraid, Mr. Banerjee’s appeal to our conscience does not commend acceptance.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Dr. Amargouda L. Patil v. Union of India, [Civil Appeal Nos. 301-303 of 2025] decided on 12.02.2025.