Recruiting Bodies May Fix Qualifying Benchmarks and Grace Marks Where Rules Are Silent or Non-Existent

The petitioner, an Army veteran discharged due to a 60% orthopedic disability, applied for the post of "Skilled Supporting Staff" under Advertisement No. 03/2019 issued by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University (RAU).

The advertisement reserved posts for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Ex-servicemen as per Government of India norms.

The petitioner obtained 93.55 total marks (79 in written, 14.55 academic).

A University committee subsequently decided that if PwD/Ex-servicemen candidates failed to meet the general merit, they would receive 30 grace marks, provided they secured a minimum of 45% (112.5 out of 300) in the written exam.

The petitioner failed to reach this threshold even with grace marks and was not appointed.

The petitioner challenged the selection process, alleging that the University changed the "rules of the game" midway by imposing qualifying marks not mentioned in the original advertisement.

1. Whether the University acted arbitrarily or illegally by fixing a minimum qualifying threshold and awarding grace marks through a committee decision during the selection process

2. Whether the non-selection of the petitioner violated the reservation norms for PwD and Ex-servicemen

Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (now superseded by the 2016 Act), which mandates reservation for disabled persons.

Supreme Court precedent in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court, which establishes that while eligibility criteria notified at the start cannot be changed midway, recruiting bodies may devise appropriate, transparent, and non-discriminatory procedures to bring the recruitment to a logical end if the rules are silent.

The principle that a candidate participating in a selection process cannot subsequently challenge the criteria if they are applied uniformly.

The Court observed that the University's "Special Instructions" in the advertisement explicitly reserved the right for the University to fix the mode and criteria for selection.

The Court found that the University committee's decision to award 30 grace marks to PwD and Ex-servicemen candidates was a humanitarian measure intended to fill reserved seats, rather than an arbitrary exclusion.

The Court reasoned that the 45% qualifying benchmark (112.5 marks) was applied uniformly to all PwD/Ex-servicemen applicants.

Since the petitioner only secured 93.50 marks—failing to meet the minimum threshold even after the potential addition of grace marks—he fell outside the zone of consideration.

The court noted the University did not select any candidate with lower marks than the petitioner, thus negating claims of unfairness.

Additionally, the petitioner’s failure to implead successful candidates was noted as a procedural defect.

The Court answered the issues in the negative, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim as his non-selection resulted solely from a failure to meet the minimum qualifying marks.

The writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.