ISRO had issued a notification on October 4, 2016, inviting applications for two Administrative Officer positions under the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories. The selection comprised a written test followed by an interview. The petitioner, who applied under the SC category, claimed to have excelled in the written examination but was not selected.

Following the written test, five candidates were called for an interview. However, when the final select list was published on May 16, 2017, the petitioner’s name was conspicuously absent. In response, the petitioner sought information through the Right to Information Act and learned that he had performed well in the written test, securing the highest marks.

Dissatisfied with the results, the petitioner initially filed an application before the Tribunal but later withdrew it, choosing instead to file a new application (OA No. 2662/2017). He argued that the selection process was flawed and that he should have been appointed over the selected candidate, Mr. Solanki Suryakant Jashwant Kumar.

During the hearings, the Tribunal determined that while the petitioner had performed admirably in the written test, his interview performance was lacking. The Tribunal upheld the fairness of the selection process, asserting that it adhered to established criteria. It also dismissed allegations of bias against the selection board, which was led by a senior IAS officer.

The respondents contended that the selection criteria were appropriate, with a weightage of 60% for the written test and 40% for the interview. They clarified that the normalization of scores was conducted correctly and maintained that calling five candidates for the interview was justified due to the nature of the vacancies available.

On the other hand, the petitioner alleged that respondent No. 3 had not met the minimum qualifying marks and challenged the appropriateness of inviting more than three candidates for the interview. He also claimed that there was no documented approval for any relaxation of marks for candidates under the SC/ST categories, which would be necessary if sufficient candidates were not available.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled that the selection process had been correctly followed. It emphasized that the selection criteria were transparent and accessible, and that the petitioner had participated in the process without objection. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner’s dissatisfaction arose only after he failed to secure a position, which, according to established legal principles, does not warrant a challenge to the selection process.

The petitioner later withdrew a subsequent writ petition but continued to contest the Tribunal's decision. However, the courts consistently maintained that candidates who participate in selection processes cannot later contest the fairness of those processes if they were aware of the criteria and chose to engage in the competition.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to established selection procedures and the limitations on candidates' ability to challenge those processes post-facto. The ruling reinforces the notion that transparency in recruitment and respect for due process are paramount, even as candidates navigate the complexities of competitive examinations in public service. In conclusion, the petitioner's challenge was dismissed, affirming the integrity of ISRO’s selection process and upholding the principles of fair competition in government recruitment.