Verified completion of a qualifying departmental course entitles a candidate to the prescribed selection marks.

The petitioner, a Constable (Civil Police), applied for selection for training for promotion to Head Constable under a circular dated 22 January 2021. Clause 9(i) of the circular provided two marks for completing a course of three to seven days. The petitioner claimed he had completed a six-day CCTNS course but received no marks for it; he was awarded 234.5 marks, while the last selected candidate had 235.5 marks.

The State had initially disputed the claim because the certificate was not in the petitioner’s service record and only a photocopy had been submitted.

After the State verified, pursuant to the Court’s direction, that the petitioner had attended the course, he sought the additional marks and consequential promotion training.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to two additional marks under the selection circular for completing the CCTNS course.

Whether the petitioner’s revised merit position entitled him to be sent for promotion training, and whether granting that relief required disturbing candidates already selected.

Clause 9(i) of the circular dated 22 January 2021 entitled a candidate who completed a course lasting three to seven days to two marks.

It applied the principle that, where a candidate has brought a qualifying course to the competent authority’s attention, the authority must verify the relevant record before finalising the merit list; an established omission in awarding marks should not prejudice the candidate.

The State’s verification established that the petitioner had completed the six-day CCTNS course, bringing him within the circular’s three-to-seven-day category and entitling him to two marks.

Adding those marks to his existing 234.5 gave him 236.5, above the last selected candidate’s 235.5.

Because only 230 Constables had been declared successful against 394 advertised posts, the Court concluded that granting the petitioner relief would not require disturbing any existing selection.

Respondent No. 4 was directed to arrange his training for promotion to Head Constable and take consequential action under the applicable rules, expeditiously.

Implementation was not to require the reversion, cancellation, or disturbance of any candidate already selected merely because of the petitioner’s revised merit position.