The Rajasthan High Court has asked the state government to explain its decision to fix the cut-off marks at zero for recruiting Class IV government employees under the reserved category. The issue came up during the hearing of Vinod Kumar Son Of Pyarelal Vs State Of Rajasthan.
During the proceedings, the court expressed concern over the recruitment process and questioned the absence of minimum qualifying marks in the examination.
Also Read | The Kerala Story 2 title row: Kerala HC declines PIL, pulls up petitioners
Court terms situation 'shocking'
Justice Anand Sharma described the matter as serious and said the issue requires close scrutiny because it affects the standards expected in government service.
The court observed, "As the appointing authority, the state is expected to ensure minimum standards even for reserved category recruitment, so that selected candidates can perform basic tasks properly, even if they are Class-IV employees. Someone who scores almost zero or negative marks cannot be considered suitable."
The bench noted that even for entry-level government positions, a basic standard must be maintained to ensure candidates are capable of carrying out assigned duties.
Petition raises concern over extremely low cut-off
The observations came while the court was hearing a writ petition challenging a recruitment process for Class IV posts in a government department. According to the petition, the cut-off marks for some reserved categories were fixed as low as 0.0033.
The court questioned why no minimum qualifying marks had been prescribed and asked the state authorities to clarify the reasoning behind such a decision.
The petitioner claimed that his candidature was rejected because he secured negative marks, despite the absence of officially fixed minimum qualifying marks.
Taking note of the claim, the court remarked that either the examination for these posts had been made unnecessarily difficult or the recruitment standards were not properly maintained. The bench also observed that no convincing explanation had been provided for not fixing minimum qualifying marks.
Reiterating its concern, the court stated, "Someone who scores almost zero or negative marks cannot be considered suitable."
Court seeks explanation from government
The High Court directed the state's counsel to submit an affidavit from the department's Principal Secretary explaining the lapse, the logic behind fixing such negligible cut-off marks and the steps proposed to address the issue.
Issuing a warning, the bench said, "If a satisfactory answer is not given, the court may take this seriously and issue strict orders with serious consequences."
The matter has been listed for the next hearing on March 9.
Additional Advocate General Kapil Prakash Mathur and Advocate Sandeep Maheshwari appeared for the state, while Advocates Harendra Neel, Amogh Gupta and Rohan Gupta represented the petitioner.
