Experience marks cannot be reduced without affording the candidate an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner applied for the post of Farm Manager (Genetics and Plant Breeding) under an advertisement dated 27 December 2024.

His experience was initially assessed at 7.763 out of 8 marks, but later reduced to 5.758 on the ground that he had gained the experience on an honorarium basis rather than against a contractual or regular post.

The petitioner challenged the revised score card, contending that the reduction was made without an opportunity to be heard.

The University stated that it had rejected his representation on 1 October 2026, but acknowledged that it had not afforded him an opportunity to present his claim before deciding his experience marks.

It also submitted that the selection process was ongoing and no final result had been declared.

Whether the University could reduce the petitioner’s experience marks without first giving him an opportunity to be heard and to submit supporting material.

Whether the Court should determine the petitioner’s entitlement to the claimed experience marks or direct the University to reconsider the matter before finalising the selection.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, holding that where an authority has power to decide a matter to a person’s detriment, a duty to act judicially is implicit, and natural justice operates where not excluded by valid law.

It further recognised that administrative action involving civil consequences must be consistent with natural justice and that an affected person must have an effective opportunity to be heard.

No statute or specific precedent was cited.

The University’s decision reduced the petitioner’s experience marks on the basis of the nature of his engagement, thereby adversely affecting his score.

The petitioner had not been given an opportunity to respond to the proposed reduction or to provide material supporting his claim; the University acknowledged this omission.

Applying the principles of natural justice, the Court held that the reduction could not stand without such an opportunity.

Because the selection process was still underway, the Court directed fresh consideration rather than deciding whether the petitioner’s experience qualified for the claimed marks, expressly reserving the merits.

The University must provide an effective opportunity of hearing, consider the supporting material, and decide the representation within twenty days of its receipt, before issuing the final select list.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.