Mandamus for appointment cannot be issued where candidates secure fewer marks than the last selected candidate.

The petitioners applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) in Government Secondary Schools (High School) following Advertisement No. 21/2016 and its subsequent amendment.

Petitioner No. 1 (Unreserved category) applied for the subject of Hindi, and Petitioner No. 2 (SC category) applied for History and Civics.

The petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint them, claiming they possessed the requisite merit and had secured more marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories.

During the proceedings, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) produced a comparative chart detailing the marks obtained by the petitioners against the cut-off marks of the last selected candidates.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus for appointment based on their performance in the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination (CGTTCE) 2016.

The court applied the fundamental principle of merit-based selection in public employment, which dictates that a candidate's eligibility for appointment is contingent upon meeting the cut-off marks established in the merit list for their specific category.

A writ of mandamus to compel an appointment can only be issued if the petitioner demonstrates a clear legal right to the post, which in recruitment cases generally requires proving that they secured marks equal to or higher than the last selected candidate.

The court performed a factual verification of the marks obtained by the petitioners relative to the State-wide merit list provided by the JSSC.

For Petitioner No. 1, the court found they secured 218 marks in the Unreserved Hindi category, while the last selected candidate secured 232 marks.

Regarding Petitioner No. 2, the court noted they secured 188 marks in the SC History and Civics category, whereas the last selected candidate secured 220 marks.

The court reasoned that since both petitioners secured significantly lower marks than the last selected candidates in their respective subjects and categories, they lacked the requisite merit standing to claim appointment.

Consequently, the court determined that the petitioners failed to establish any legal right that would warrant judicial intervention or the issuance of a mandamus.

The court found the petitioners’ claims of having higher marks than the selected candidates to be factually incorrect.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.