Recruiting Authority Can Prescribe Minimum Marks After Test , If Provided In Advertisement : Delhi HC

Background Facts

The petitioners were applicants for the post of Section Officer in the Combined Administrative Services Examination-2023. It was conducted by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). An advertisement was issued in December 2023 inviting applications for 444 posts. The advertisement stated that minimum threshold marks would be decided by the Competent Authority.

The examination consisted of two stages, Stage-I (Paper-I and Paper-II) and Stage-II (Paper-III). After the Stage-I results were declared, the CSIR issued a notice prescribing minimum qualifying marks for Paper-III. The Petitioners appeared in the examination but were not shortlisted for the interview stage as they failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in Paper-III.

Then, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the prescription of minimum threshold marks. The Tribunal dismissed their Original Applications. It was held that the discretion to prescribe threshold marks was expressly reserved in the advertisement. Further, the marks were notified prior to the stage of examination. The candidates who participated without protest were estopped from challenging it later.

Aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, the petitioners filed the writ petitions before the Delhi High Court.

The petitioners contended that the CSIR arbitrarily prescribed minimum qualifying marks for Paper-III after the commencement of the recruitment process. Reliance was placed on Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.; and Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal and Anr, to submit that it is impermissible to change the selection criteria after the recruitment process has begun.

On the other hand, the CSIR contended that the recruitment advertisement provided that minimum threshold marks shall be decided by the Competent Authority. It was submitted that the minimum marks for Paper-III were notified before the conduct of Paper-III. Therefore, no surprise or prejudice was caused.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that Clause 5-A of the Recruitment-advertisement provided that minimum threshold marks would be decided by the Competent Authority. It was further observed that if such discretion is reserved in the advertisement, then petitioner cannot contend that prescribing minimum qualifying marks amounts to altering the rules of the game mid-way. The candidates entered the selection process with clear notice that the authority retained the power to prescribe threshold marks wherever required.

Reliance was placed by the Court upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., wherein it was held that in the absence of statutory rules, a recruiting authority is entitled to evolve an appropriate selection methodology, including prescription of minimum benchmarks, provided such benchmarks are notified before the commencement of the relevant stage and do not take candidates by surprise. It was clarified that a post-evaluation change in criteria is impermissible, but the prescription of qualifying standards prior to the conduct of the concerned stage is permissible.

It was noted by the Court that the minimum qualifying marks for Paper-III were notified before the Stage-II (Paper-III). Therefore, the prescription of threshold marks was before the relevant stage of examination. Further the evaluation process and the outcome did not influence the fixation of the benchmark.

It was further observed that the petitioners could not prove any prejudice. The prescription of minimum marks was a process of shortlisting candidates for the next stage and was applicable uniformly across the board.

It was also noted that the petitioners had participated in the examination without raising any objection, therefore, they could not be permitted to challenge the process after failing to qualify. It was further observed that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks was justified by the CSIR on the basis of functional requirements of the posts.

With the aforesaid observations, the Tribunal's order was upheld by the Division Bench. Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the applicants were dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Dinesh & Anr. v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research through its Director General & Anr.

Case No. : W.P.(C) 17518/2025 and others

Counsel for the Petitioners : Puja Jakhar, Harshit Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents : Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate along with Arun Sanwal