Minimum Qualifying Marks Are a Condition Precedent for Awarding Contractual Work Experience Weightage marks.

Sixty-eight petitioners, working as contractual pharmacists in Bihar since 2006, challenged Advertisement No. 22/2025 issued by the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) for regular appointments

The advertisement mandated a minimum qualifying cut-off score in a written competitive examination (75 marks) as a prerequisite for the addition of work experience weightage (25 marks)

The petitioners participated in the selection process but failed to secure the minimum cut-off marks

They subsequently moved the High Court seeking to set aside Clause 5(ii)(g) and 5(iii) of the advertisement, arguing it contradicted Government Letter No. 12956 dated 16.08.2024, which they claimed mandated the addition of experience marks in both preliminary and main stages

1. Whether the requirement to achieve a minimum qualifying cut-off score in the written examination before adding work experience marks is discriminatory or contrary to government instructions

2. Whether candidates who participated in a selection process and failed can subsequently challenge the terms of the advertisement

The Court applied the principle of strict adherence to recruitment advertisements as established in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan (2011) 12 SCC 85, which mandates that selection processes must scrupulously follow stipulated procedures to satisfy Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

The court relied on Arjun Kumar v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 13951 of 2024), which clarified that minimum qualifying marks serve as a benchmark for elimination and must be met before weightage is added

The court referenced Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 regarding the limitations on claims for permanent absorption by contractual employees

The Court observed that Clause 5(ii)(g) of the advertisement explicitly set the minimum cut-off marks for different categories (e.g., 40% for General, 36.5% for BC) and stated that failure to meet this benchmark would Result in the forfeiture of any claim

The court reasoned that the "Rule of the Game" was clearly defined and that the petitioners only challenged the criteria after they were declared unsuccessful

Relying on the precedent in Arjun Kumar, the court held that the 25 marks for experience are supplementary and can only be added to the scores of candidates who first cross the threshold of merit in the written test

The court found that the government’s clarificatory letter regarding age relaxation and experience marks did not override the Commission's power to set elimination benchmarks for regular appointments

The court affirmed that achieving the minimum cut-off marks is a valid condition precedent for the consideration of work experience weightage

The writ petition was dismissed, and no interference with the recruitment process was deemed necessary