Recruitment marks calculated under the prescribed cancelled-question formula cannot be altered absent proof of error.

The petitioner appeared in the 2013 Police Constable Recruitment Test. After Questions 3 and 36 were cancelled, his raw score of 70 was recalculated under Clause 2.16 of the Rulebook as 70 × 100/98 = 71.42 and rounded to 71.

The unreserved-category cut-off was 72, and the petitioner was not selected. He sought rechecking and recalculation of his marks, appointment, and related relief, contending that he was entitled to 72 marks.

The respondents maintained that the calculation complied with the Rulebook. The petitioner filed no rejoinder to their reply.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his score recalculated as 72, rather than 71, following cancellation of two questions.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for selection and appointment despite scoring below the unreserved-category cut-off.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Under Clause 2.16 of the recruitment Rulebook, where questions are cancelled, candidates’ marks are proportionately recalculated using the prescribed formula; the respondents applied the formula as raw marks × 100/(100 − number of cancelled questions), with 0.5 or above rounded up.

Clause 2.18 governed the prescribed procedure for cancellation of questions by the Key Committee.

No judicial precedent was cited or applied.

The Court found that Questions 3 and 36 had been cancelled through the procedure prescribed by Clause 2.18 and that the petitioner’s raw score of 70 had been recalculated under Clause 2.16, producing 71.42 and a final score of 71.

The petitioner provided no material showing that the formula had been applied incorrectly or that he was otherwise entitled to 72 marks; he also filed no rejoinder rebutting the respondents’ explanation.

Since 71 was below the cut-off of 72, the Court found no basis to direct selection or appointment.

The Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.