Written examination marks constitute a valid tie-breaking criterion for candidates securing identical aggregate marks in recruitment.

The Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP), a subsidiary of SAIL, issued an advertisement on 22.12.2006 to recruit 300 Junior Technician-cum-Operative Trainees (Junior TOT)

The Applicant, a general category candidate, participated in the written test and interview, securing an aggregate of 73 marks (51 in written, 22 in interview)

Upon failing to receive an appointment, the Applicant filed a Writ Petition before the Calcutta High Court, which directed the respondents to dispose of his representation

The respondents rejected his representation via a reasoned order dated 15.10.2011, explaining that while 73 was the cut-off for the Unreserved (UR) category, several candidates reached this score.

To fill the limited vacancies, the respondents prioritized those with higher marks in the written examination; the last selected UR candidate secured 52 marks in the written test, whereas the Applicant secured 51

The Applicant challenged this order, alleging a lack of transparency and claiming that candidates with lower marks were appointed

1. Whether the selection process was arbitrary or discriminatory for failing to appoint the Applicant despite him securing the cut-off marks.

2. Whether the Applicant can claim parity with candidates from reserved categories who secured lower aggregate marks.

3. Whether the Tribunal can interfere with the merits of the Selection Committee’s decision after the candidate participated in the process without protest.

The Tribunal relied on Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985

It applied the principle of Estoppel, established in 2008 (4) SCC 171 and 2016 (1) SCC 454, which holds that unsuccessful candidates who participate in a selection process without demur are precluded from challenging its validity

Regarding the Scope of Judicial Review, the Tribunal followed AIR 1990 SC 434 and 2008 (2) SCC 649, affirming that courts do not sit in appeal over the technical decisions of a Selection Committee unless there is a gross legal infirmity

Furthermore, it upheld the constitutional and statutory validity of applying different cut-off marks for reserved category candidates (SC/ST) to ensure representation

The Tribunal found that the respondents adopted a logical and transparent tie-breaking criterion by using written examination scores to differentiate between multiple candidates who secured the aggregate cut-off of 73 marks

The Applicant’s failure to be selected was not due to arbitrariness but because he scored lower in the written component (51) compared to the last selected candidate (52)

Regarding the Applicant's claim that candidates with marks as low as 66 were appointed, the Tribunal observed that these individuals belonged to reserved categories (SC/ST) for whom the cut-off marks are legally lower than those for the UR category; thus, the Applicant could not claim parity

The Tribunal further dismissed the Applicant's attempt to challenge the caste status of other candidates based on their surnames, labeling the argument as specious and a "mischievous attempt" to bolster a weak case

It directly answered that the selection was conducted in a proper and transparent manner, and the Applicant’s non-selection was a result of competitive merit within his category

Consequently, the Original Application (O.A.) was dismissed for being devoid of merit, and no costs were awarded