Recruiting Body May Prescribe Minimum Qualifying Marks for Interviews Despite Non-Disclosure in Recruitment Advertisement

The applicant, Mukesh Kumar Rohila, applied for the post of Senior Public Prosecutor/Public Prosecutor in the CBI under Advertisement No. 51/2010.

He secured 99/200 marks in aggregate, equal to a selected candidate; however, he was denied appointment because he secured only 38 marks in the interview, falling below the minimum qualifying threshold of 40 marks prescribed for PH candidates.

The applicant challenged this, arguing that the advertisement did not disclose minimum interview marks and that introducing such criteria via a "confidential" Circular No. 01/2005 after the process began amounted to changing the "rules of the game".

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal by the Delhi High Court to reconsider the applicability of UPSC Circular No. 01/2005 dated 04.01.2005.

1. Whether the UPSC is empowered to prescribe minimum qualifying marks for interviews even if not explicitly mentioned in the recruitment advertisement.

2. Whether the application of Circular No. 01/2005, which was issued prior to the advertisement but not explicitly detailed therein, constitutes an illegal or arbitrary change to the "rules of the game".

A constitutional body like the UPSC is empowered to prescribe selection procedures, including minimum qualifying benchmarks, to maintain recruitment standards.

Circular No. 01/2005 is in the public domain and candidates are expected to be aware of UPSC's general instructions (UPSC v. Mukesh Kumar Suman).

Guidelines issued prior to an advertisement and applied uniformly do not constitute changing rules mid-process (Mahesh Chand Bareth v. State of Rajasthan).

Candidates in a select list have no indefeasible right to appointment (Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh).

The recruitment criteria were not introduced post facto but were derived from Circular No. 01/2005, which pre-dates the advertisement.

UPSC’s interview cut-offs were in the public domain since 2005 and the advertisement directed candidates to check the website for detailed instructions.

The applicant failed to meet the mandatory 40% interview threshold (scoring 38).

Because these standards were applied uniformly to all candidates and were based on a pre-existing policy, the Tribunal held there was no procedural irregularity or arbitrary exercise of power.

Consequently, the applicant had no enforceable right to appointment due to his failure to secure the minimum interview marks; the Original Application (O.A. No. 213/2013) was dismissed as being without merit.