Uniform qualifying benchmarks in skill tests do not constitute an impermissible midstream rule change.

The applicant applied for the post of Fire Operator (Post Code 18/19) under Advertisement No. 04/2019

He participated in the Tier-III Driving Skill Test on 27.07.2022

He secured 16/20 marks in the theory component and 46/80 in the practical component

On 28.12.2022, the respondents declared the applicant unsuccessful because he failed to meet a minimum qualifying benchmark of 60% (48/80) in the practical component

The applicant challenged the result, contending that the 60% threshold was an arbitrary, "midstream" change to the selection criteria not disclosed in the original advertisement or test notice

He further alleged that the marking was subjective, the instructor misled him into signing documents twice, and requested forensic examination of the test videography

1. Whether the prescription and application of a 60% minimum qualifying benchmark for the practical component of the Driving Skill Test amounted to an impermissible change in the "rules of the game" midstream

2. Whether the evaluation process was arbitrary, opaque, or vitiated by mala fides

The Tribunal emphasized that judicial review in recruitment matters is limited to the decision-making process rather than the decision itself

It relied on the Five-Judge Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court Ors., which held that recruiting authorities may evolve selection methodologies and benchmarks provided they do not constitute a "post-evaluation" change in criteria

The Tribunal primarily followed the ratio in Dinesh Anr. v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Ors. (Delhi HC, 2026), which established that if discretion to prescribe threshold marks is reserved in the recruitment notice, its exercise is not an ex post facto introduction of a new criterion

the principle of estoppel applies when a candidate participates in an examination without protest and only challenges the criteria upon failure

The Tribunal found that the 60% qualifying benchmark was derived from Rule 14(1A) of the Motor Vehicle Act and departmental communications issued in September and November 2022

It observed that the criterion was applied uniformly across all candidates and was not tailored to the applicant

The Tribunal rejected the "rules of the game" plea, noting that the applicant participated in the test on 27.07.2022 without objection and only raised grievances after failing to qualify

Regarding transparency, the Tribunal noted that the Evaluation Board comprised independent officers from the Home, Fire Service, and Transport departments, and no complaints were raised on the day of the test

The allegations of signature manipulation and videography tampering were dismissed as unsubstantiated apprehensions

the Tribunal held that it cannot exercise judicial review to lower uniform qualifying standards, especially for skill-based roles like Fire Operators

The marginal shortfall of two marks did not entitle the applicant to any relief or relaxation of standards

The Original Application was dismissed