For equal aggregate marks, age-based seniority governs merit before qualification or height.

The Punjab Department of Jails issued an advertisement dated 8 November 2016 for direct recruitment to 210 posts of Male Warders and 57 posts of Female Matrons. Selection involved physical measurement, physical screening, and preparation of category-wise merit based on marks for height and performance in the 10+2 examination.

Gurinder Singh applied for the post of Male Warder in the Scheduled Caste (Mazhbi Sikh/Balmiki) category. He claimed to have secured 27 marks—15 marks for height and 12 marks for his 10+2 performance.

In the final merit list dated 1 December 2018, 22 candidates were selected in that category. The last two selected candidates, Gurmej Singh and Rajbhupinder Singh, also secured 27 marks.

The petitioner contended that he had better 10+2 marks than Gurmej Singh and greater height than Rajbhupinder Singh and therefore ought to have been preferred in the event of a tie. After issuing a legal notice seeking consideration of his candidature and revision of the merit list, he filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The respondents relied on paragraph 5 of Standing Order No. 01 of 2016, which prescribed that, where candidates obtained equal aggregate marks, the candidate senior in age would rank higher. Since both selected candidates were older than the petitioner, they were placed above him in the merit list.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to precedence over the selected candidates who obtained the same aggregate marks, on the basis of his higher 10+2 marks or greater height?

Whether the respondents correctly applied the tie-resolution criteria contained in paragraph 5 of Standing Order No. 01 of 2016 by placing the candidates senior in age above the petitioner?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to revision of the final merit list and consequential consideration for appointment as Male Warder?

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, governing judicial review by the High Court, together with the recruitment criteria contained in the advertisement dated 8 November 2016 and paragraph 5 of Standing Order No. 01 of 2016.

The Standing Order prescribed a sequential tie-resolution mechanism: where candidates obtained equal aggregate marks, the candidate senior in age would rank higher; only if age and date of birth were also equal would higher 10+2 marks be considered, followed thereafter by height marks and, finally, roll-number order.

Thus, the first applicable tie-breaking criterion—seniority in age—was determinative, and the subsequent criteria could be considered only if the preceding criteria were equal.

The petitioner, Gurmej Singh, and Rajbhupinder Singh each secured 27 aggregate marks. The comparative table showed that Gurmej Singh was 26 years, 5 months and 25 days old; Rajbhupinder Singh was 25 years, 1 month and 24 days old; and the petitioner was 20 years, 8 months and 0 days old as on 1 January 2016.

Under paragraph 5(a) of the Standing Order, the two selected candidates were therefore required to rank above the petitioner because they were senior in age.

The petitioner’s reliance on his higher 10+2 marks vis-à-vis Gurmej Singh and his greater height vis-à-vis Rajbhupinder Singh was misplaced, since those were later-stage tie-breaking criteria applicable only where the candidates were also equal in age and date of birth.

The Court consequently found that the merit list had been prepared in accordance with the prescribed criteria and disclosed no basis for judicial interference.

The petitioner was not entitled to precedence on the basis of his 10+2 marks or height because those criteria were subsequent in the prescribed hierarchy.

The writ petition seeking revision of the merit list and consideration for appointment was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.