Candidate Who Takes Part In Selection Without Protest Can't Challenge It After Losing: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has dismissed a decade-old writ petition challenging the appointment of an Assistant Librarian at Dr. Hari Singh Gour Central University, Sagar, holding that a court cannot sit as an appellate authority over a Selection Committee's decision unless the selection is tainted by gross irregularity or mala fide.

Justice Vivek Agarwal passed the order on September 28, 2026, in a 2016 petition by Dr. Krishna Kumar Kesharwani. He had challenged the Registrar's order of December 13, 2012, appointing Dr. Anurag Shrivastava as Assistant Librarian in the university's Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Library in Pay Band-3 of Rs 15,600-39,100.

Kesharwani, who was also a candidate for the post, raised several objections. He argued that Shrivastava's Ph.D. certificate was issued in 2013, while the last date for applications was in January 2012. He also contended that Shrivastava lacked the desirable PGDCA qualification in Library Science, which he himself held, and the required supervisory library experience. He said he was equally qualified and should have been preferred.

Senior Advocate Shobha Menon supported the impugned order for the university. Shrivastava's counsel submitted that he had worked as an Assistant Librarian at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Delhi, and that a comparison of qualifications and marks showed he was the more suitable candidate.

The court first found the Ph.D. objection factually incorrect. Shrivastava was notified of the completion of his Ph.D. on April 28, 2011, well before the last date for applications, January 10, 2012. The argument, it said, "cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected."

The court observed that Kesharwani had secured lesser marks than Shrivastava in Class 12, graduation, B.Lib and M.Lib examinations. On experience, Shrivastava had worked as a Librarian at Kendriya Vidyalaya, New Delhi, and Kendriya Vidyalaya, Madhopur, for two years and seven months. Kesharwani, by contrast, had admittedly worked as a Cataloguer, and the court said "the experience of Cataloguer cannot be counted" towards supervisory library experience. His stint as officiating Assistant Librarian since January 17, 2011, had run for less than a year when the advertisement closed.

The court said it was "evident that desirable qualifications will not supersede the essential qualifications."

The plea that the post should have been filled through promotion, not direct recruitment, also failed. The university pointed out that promotion required eight years' experience and that, under UGC norms, the post is filled through direct recruitment. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Madras Institute of Development Studies v. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan (2016), the court held that a candidate who takes part in a selection process without protest cannot challenge it after being unsuccessful.

The court was equally firm on the limits of judicial review. Noting that the expert Selection Committee had already weighed comparative merit, it said it was "no more open to the High Court to assess the comparative merits" of the two candidates. It added that "the High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the Selection Committee, unless the parties are able to demonstrate that the selection is vitiated with gross irregularity or mala fide." The court cited paragraph 21 of M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission (2008), which cautions that courts rarely sit in appeal over selection decisions.

Finding that Kesharwani had "failed to point out any gross irregularity or mala fide", the court dismissed the petition.

One limited issue was closed separately. Hazari submitted that some officiating pay and allowances remained pending with the university. Menon told the court that if the petitioner made a fresh representation within 30 days, she would direct the Registrar and the Vice-Chancellor to decide it through a speaking order, in accordance with law, within a further 30 days. The writ petition was disposed of on those terms.

Advocate Shivam Hazari appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate Shobha Menon, assisted by Advocate Rahul Choubey, appeared for the university, and Advocate Aviral Vinayak represented respondent no. 3.

Case Title: Dr. Krishna Kumar Kesharwani vs. The Vice Chancellor and Others

Date of Order: September 28, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal