Shanabhoga M B Vs Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (Apeda) & Ors.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the recruitment process undertaken by Respondent No. 1, Agricultural And Processed Food Products Export Development Authority,¹ pursuant to the advertisement dated 14^th June, 2025 for appointment to the post of Assistant General Manager (Agriculture).

¶14

The Petitioner participated in the process and appeared in the written

¶15

1 “APEDA”

¶16

W.P.(C) 18245/2025 Page 1 of 6

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/01/2026 at 12:45:29

¶19

examination held on 24^th August, 2025. The petition proceeds on the footing that the Petitioner secured 61.75 marks in the written examination, which is above the benchmark of 60% stipulated in the advertisement for candidates other than SC/ST, yet the Petitioner was not called for interview. On that premise, the Petitioner seeks, inter alia, quashing of the results dated 4^th November, 2025 and 14^th November, 2025, a declaration that shortlisting on an alleged “1:5” ratio is illegal, a direction to redraw the shortlist by calling all candidates scoring the benchmark marks, and consequential restraint on appointments.

¶20

The recruitment process and structure is evident from the advertisement itself. It contemplates a written test “followed by interview of shortlisted candidates”. The advertisement also stipulates that the qualifying marks in the written test “for short-listing of candidates for interview” shall be 50% for SC/ST and 60% for other candidates. It further clarifies that candidature remains provisional at every stage, and success in the written test confers no right of appointment unless the competent authority is satisfied that the candidate is suitable in all respects.

¶21

The recruitment progressed as scheduled and a notice dated 7^th October, 2025 provisionally shortlisted candidates for interview. Interviews were scheduled and conducted in early November, 2025. The result for AGM (Agriculture) was declared on 6^th November, 2025 and later revised on 14^th November, 2025. The Petitioner claims to have received the writtentest marks on 18^th November, 2025.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner challenges the recruitment on the ground that the Respondents departed from the express terms of the advertisement and thereby denied the Petitioner a fair opportunity of consideration. The

¶23

W.P.(C) 18245/2025 Page 2 of 6

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/01/2026 at 12:45:29

¶26

submission begins with the shortlisting standard stated in the advertisement. The recruitment was structured in two stages, a written test (100 marks) followed by an interview (40 marks). The advertisement further stipulated that the qualifying marks in the written test for shortlisting candidates for interview would be 50% for SC/ST candidates and 60% for all other candidates. On that basis, it is urged that every candidate crossing the relevant benchmark became eligible to be considered for interview, subject to verification of eligibility.

¶27

It is then argued that the Petitioner secured 61.75 marks in the written test for AGM (Agriculture), yet was not shortlisted for interview. This exclusion, according to the Petitioner, is irreconcilable with the benchmark in the advertisement and renders the shortlisting arbitrary. Counsel further submits that the Respondents, without disclosure and without any amendment of the recruitment terms, restricted the interview shortlist by applying a 1:5 ratio, calling only five candidates per vacancy. Reliance is placed on Notice No. 4/2025 dated 7^th October, 2025, which shows that 40 candidates were shortlisted against eight vacancies for AGM (Agriculture), and 10 candidates against two vacancies for AGM (Business Promotion). This, it is urged, discloses an undisclosed shortlisting filter that displaced the advertised benchmark.

¶28

An issue has also been raised with regard to transparency, as the marks obtained in the written test were not disclosed at the time of publication of the shortlist. The notice stated that marks, including those of candidates not shortlisted for interview, would be communicated only after declaration of final results. Counsel submits that this withheld material information at the stage when meaningful objections could have been raised,

¶29

W.P.(C) 18245/2025 Page 3 of 6

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/01/2026 at 12:45:29

¶32

and insulated the shortlisting methodology from scrutiny.

¶33

The Petitioner also questions the integrity of the selection outcome. It is alleged that candidates with lower written-test marks were called for interview while candidates securing higher marks were excluded, without any disclosed rule or rational basis. Such an “inversion of merit”, it is urged, offends Articles 14 and 16. Reliance is placed on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court² to contend that the rules of the game cannot be altered midstream to the detriment of candidates, and that uncanalised discretion in public recruitment is antithetical to the rule of law.

¶34

Having considered the aforenoted submissions, this Court is not persuaded to interfere. Judicial review in recruitment matters is confined to correcting illegality, breach of mandatory rules, mala fides, or manifest arbitrariness. A writ court does not re-run a selection exercise or substitute its assessment for that of the recruiting authority merely because an unsuccessful candidate considers the outcome unfair. The Supreme Court has recently restated this restraint in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J&K .³ 10. The Petitioner’s case turns on the premise that the benchmark of 60% in the written test created a right to be called for interview. The advertisement does not support such a reading. It contemplated a written test followed by interview of shortlisted candidates and stated the qualifying marks in the written test for shortlisting. In a competitive process with a large number of applicants, “qualifying” operates as a minimum threshold. It does not, without more, guarantee an interview to every candidate crossing the threshold, irrespective of the number of such candidates.

¶35

2 2025 (2) SCC 1

¶36

3 (2023) 17 SCC 147

¶37

W.P.(C) 18245/2025 Page 4 of 6

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/01/2026 at 12:45:29

¶40

Once the written examination operates as a screening device, the recruiting authority is not only entitled but, in fact, expected to further confine the field for viva voce on the basis of inter se merit. The prescription of minimum qualifying marks merely determines eligibility; it does not create an enforceable right to be interviewed. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana⁴ , the Supreme Court clarified that calling every candidate who crosses the minimum threshold for interview would render the viva voce exercise unmanageable, superficial, and prone to arbitrariness. The Court underscored that an unduly large interview pool dilutes the objectivity of the written test and disproportionately enlarges the discretionary space at the interview stage. It was for this reason held that, in a composite selection process, the number of candidates called for interview should ordinarily be restricted to a reasonable multiple of available vacancies.

¶41

A shortlist in the ratio of 1:5 is well within this accepted norm. Far from being arbitrary, such confinement of the interview stage reduces subjectivity, preserves the integrity of the written examination, and promotes administrable fairness in competitive recruitment.

¶42

The reliance placed on Tej Prakash Pathak does not advance the petitioner’s case on the present facts. While the principle that, “rules of the game” cannot be altered midstream is unexceptionable, the Petitioner does not point to any statutory rule or binding recruitment condition that mandated that every candidate securing 60% must be interviewed. In the absence of such a mandate, adopting a further merit-based shortlist for the interview stage does not amount to changing the rules. It is a method of operationalising the shortlisting stage in a competitive recruitment.

¶43

4 (1985) 4 SCC 417

¶44

W.P.(C) 18245/2025 Page 5 of 6

¶45

This is a digitally signed order.

¶46

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/01/2026 at 12:45:29

¶47

The grievance regarding non-disclosure of written-test marks at the shortlisting stage also does not, in itself, vitiate the process. The notice expressly stated that marks would be communicated after declaration of final results. Without a legal requirement that marks must be disclosed before interviews, non-disclosure cannot be treated as a standalone ground to set aside the selection.

¶48

The allegation that candidates with lower written marks were called for interview while the petitioner was excluded is contested. A challenge of this amplitude, seeking to annul results and disturb selections, must rest on clear and demonstrable material. The petition, as framed, does not place a reliable comparative chart or undisputed record to sustain “inversion of merit” as a foundational fact.

¶49

The timing of the challenge is also of relevance. The petitioner learnt on 7^th October, 2025 that he was not shortlisted, yet the challenge is pressed after interviews and declaration of results. At this stage, a direction to redraw the shortlist and redo interviews would unsettle an advanced process and affect third-party rights on a large scale. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and the Court declines to exercise it in a manner that would unravel a concluded selection in the absence of demonstrated illegality or mala fides.

¶50

For these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed along with pending applications.

¶51

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶52

JANUARY 8, 2026 hc

¶53

W.P.(C) 18245/2025 Page 6 of 6

¶54

This is a digitally signed order.

¶55

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/01/2026 at 12:45:29

Shanabhoga M B v. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (Apeda) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanabhoga M B v. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (Apeda) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Ankur Mittal Vs Sr. Superintendent Policy Regional Passport Office

Tejpal Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anil Kumar Mishra and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through the Commissioner

Union of India & Ors. Vs Naresh

Faisal Ali Vs MCD & Ors.

Vcraft International Private Limited Vs Yes Bank Limited and Ors.

Kdy College of Education & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Routu Kishore Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manmood Shankar Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Ranjith Rebello Vs Mata Sundri College for Women & Anr.

Sohan Kumar and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through the Commissioner

Riyazuddin Vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Anr.

Anant Kumar Dahiya Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Vs Gail India Limited & Anr.