The Gujarat High Court dismissed petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates challenging a requirement imposed by the Selection Board that candidates must secure a minimum of 40% marks in each subject of the Sub-Inspector / Instructor, Grade III examination. Even though some petitioners had achieved more than 40% marks in the aggregate, they were disqualified because they failed to meet the subject-wise threshold. The petitioners argued that this requirement was not consistent with the Recruitment Rules, and that they should be considered successful based on their aggregate score.
The Court considered the structure and intent of the Recruitment Rules and the role of the Selection Board. The State defended the requirement, contending that allowing candidates who fail in one subject but compensate with higher scores in other subjects would subvert the purpose of ensuring minimum competence across all tested areas. The Court agreed with this position, observing that the objective of testing across multiple subjects is to ascertain knowledge, understanding, and capability in each area, not merely an overall grasp of the examination as a whole.
Justice Nikhil Kariel reasoned that interpreting the rules to allow aggregate qualification even where a candidate fails in a subject would defeat the purpose of requiring a balanced competence. He held that both literal and purposive interpretation of the rules must be given effect: the rules explicitly contemplate that the Selection Board has the power to fix minimum qualifying standards in the examination, and that this standard must be met in each subject. The distinction in phraseology between references to “main examination” and “written test” in the rules was seen as significant and deliberate, reinforcing the requirement of subject-wise minimum marks. According to the Court, a permissive interpretation in favor of aggregate scoring would conflict with the clear language and purpose of the rules.
The Court emphasized that the rules have statutory force and binding effect on the recruiting authority. Where the rules are silent, administrative instructions may fill gaps, but here the rule itself mandates the subject-wise minimum. As a result, the Court held that a candidate who fails to score the minimum qualifying marks in any subject cannot be considered eligible merely because he or she has scored sufficiently in the aggregate.
Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed, and the Selection Board’s decision was upheld. The High Court’s ruling reinforces that in competitive examinations, thresholds for qualifying in individual subjects are valid and must be adhered to, even if a candidate’s overall score is satisfactory.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.