Home Guards failing to secure minimum qualifying marks are ineligible for recruitment despite reserved vacancy quotas.

The sixteen petitioners, serving as Home Guard constables, applied for the post of Constable under Advertisement No. 2 of 2019.

They approached the High Court seeking a direction to allow them to appear in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and to declare them successful in the written examination by granting marks relaxation.

The petitioners argued that the 50% vacancy quota reserved for Home Guards was not properly implemented.

During the pendency of the writ, the selection process was completed and appointments were made.

The Central Selection Board (CSBC) opposed the petition, stating the petitioners failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a relaxation in minimum qualifying marks for the written examination based on their status as Home Guards.

2. Whether the selection process under Advertisement No. 2 of 2019 was vitiated by failing to adhere to the horizontal reservation or relaxation norms for Home Guards.

The Court applied the specific terms of Advertisement No. 2 of 2019 and relevant Government notifications regarding recruitment.

Clause 13.2 of the advertisement stipulated a five-year relaxation in the maximum age limit for Home Guards but explicitly excluded any other form of relaxation, including marks relaxation.

The Court further adhered to the principle that candidates must meet the prescribed minimum qualifying threshold (30% in this case) to proceed in a recruitment process.

The Court examined the eligibility of the petitioners against the mandatory requirements of the recruitment notification. It was observed that while the petitioners sought relaxation in the written examination marks, Advertisement No. 2 of 2019 only provided for age relaxation under Clause 13.2 and contained no provision for lowering the qualifying marks for Home Guards.

The record established that none of the petitioners secured the minimum qualifying marks of 30%, which rendered them disqualified from proceeding to the Physical Efficiency Test.

Furthermore, the Court noted a procedural hurdle: the petitioners did not challenge the validity of the advertisement itself or the final selection list, yet they sought relief that contradicted the advertisement's terms after the selection process had already concluded and appointments were finalized.

The Court found no merit in the petition as the selection process was already concluded in accordance with the law, and consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.