A candidate below the prescribed written-test cutoff has no right to appear in the proficiency test.

The State Level Police Recruitment Board issued an advertisement dated 16.02.2023 for one post of Physiotherapist at the Central Police Hospital, PTC, Dergaon, Assam.

The petitioner applied for the post and participated in the common written examination held on 09.04.2023.

Under the recruitment scheme, candidates were required to appear in a 50-mark written test, after which candidates were to be called for the Trade Proficiency Test (TPT) in order of merit at five times the number of available posts.

The petitioner claimed that he had secured the highest marks in the written examination and alleged that he was denied the opportunity to indicate his preference for the post of Physiotherapist during the TPT.

He was permitted to participate only for the post of Dresser.

The recruiting authority contended that the petitioner had secured only 32 marks in the written examination, whereas the last candidate called for the TPT for the single Physiotherapist post had secured 36 marks.

Respondent No. 6 secured 41 marks in the written examination and 33 marks in the TPT and was selected for the post.

Upon the Court’s direction, the recruitment records were produced.

They confirmed that the petitioner had obtained 32 marks and was not among the five candidates eligible to be called for the TPT.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to be called for the Trade Proficiency Test for the post of Physiotherapist despite securing fewer marks than the last candidate within the prescribed five-times-vacancy zone.

Whether the petitioner’s claim that he had secured the highest marks in the written examination and was wrongly denied preference for the post of Physiotherapist was supported by the recruitment records.

The Court applied the recruitment conditions contained in the advertisement, particularly Clause VII, under which candidates were to be called for the Trade Proficiency Test in order of merit at five times the number of vacancies.

The governing principle was that selection must proceed in accordance with the notified recruitment scheme and the comparative merit disclosed by the official records.

A candidate who did not fall within the prescribed zone of consideration had no enforceable right to be called for the subsequent proficiency test or to claim preference for that post.

The Court examined the records produced by the recruiting authority rather than accepting the petitioner’s assertion regarding his written-test performance.

Since there was only one Physiotherapist vacancy, the recruitment scheme permitted five candidates to be called for the TPT.

The records showed that the last candidate called had secured 36 marks, while the petitioner had secured only 32 marks.

Consequently, the petitioner was outside the permissible five-candidate zone and could not claim participation in the TPT for the Physiotherapist post.

The records also disproved his assertion that he was the highest scorer in the written examination.

As his exclusion followed the express recruitment criteria, the Court found no illegality or legitimate grievance warranting writ relief.

His claim of having secured the highest marks was unsupported by the records.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as without merit, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.