Writ Petition Challenging Appointment is Infructuous if Correction of Errors Does Not Benefit Candidate on Merit

The petitioner applied for the post of Jal Rakshak in the Irrigation and Public Health (IPH) Department following a recruitment notice published on July 3, 2012.

Upon the declaration of results (Annexure P-8), respondent No. 7 (Rajinder Kumar) was selected after securing 91 marks.

The petitioner, who secured 61 marks, approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the result and a writ of mandamus to award him proper marks for his age and education.

The petitioner’s primary grievance was that the respondents failed to award him 15 marks under the age criteria despite him being 27 years old at the time of application.

The court applied the "Selection Criteria for Jal Rakshak in IPH Department" policy, which provides a structured marking system for physical fitness based on age.

The policy mandates that candidates between the ages of 26–36 are entitled to the maximum of 15 marks.

The court further applied the principle of "prejudice," assessing whether a corrected marking error would have a material impact on the final merit-based outcome.

The court examined the petitioner’s age at the time of application (27 years) and acknowledged that under the recruitment policy, he was indeed entitled to 15 marks for age.

The court performed a comparative merit analysis based on the result card (Annexure P-8) noting that the selected candidate (respondent No. 7) secured 91 marks, whereas the petitioner secured 61 marks.

Even if the court awarded the petitioner the 15 marks he claimed were wrongly withheld, his total score would increase to only 76 marks.

Since 76 marks remained significantly lower than the 91 marks secured by the selected candidate, the court reasoned that the error in marking did not result in a wrongful denial of appointment.

The petitioner failed to challenge the marks awarded to the selected candidate under any other head; thus, the merit of the private respondent remained undisturbed.

The court answered the issue in the negative, finding no merit in the petition and refusing to set aside the appointment of respondent No. 7.

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