Rajasthan High Court Questions Zero Cut-Off Marks in Reserved Category Recruitment

The Rajasthan High Court recently expressed serious concern over the State government fixing extremely low cut-off marks for reserved categories in recruitment for Class IV government posts. The observation came in the case Vinod Kumar S/o Pyarelal v The State Of Rajasthan, where the Court questioned the logic behind such recruitment standards.

Justice Anand Sharma of the Jaipur Bench described the situation as “shocking” and emphasised that even entry-level government recruitment must maintain minimum standards. The Court said the State, as the appointing authority, has a responsibility to ensure that selected candidates are capable of performing their duties properly.

The matter arose from a writ petition challenging the recruitment process for Class IV employees in a government department. During the hearing, it was revealed that the cut-off marks for certain reserved categories had been fixed at an extremely low level, with one category showing a cut-off of only 0.0033 marks.

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, argued that his candidature had been rejected only because he secured negative marks in the examination. He contended that since no minimum qualifying marks were prescribed for the recruitment process, the rejection of his application was unjustified.

While examining the issue, the Court expressed strong concern over the recruitment standards being applied. Justice Sharma observed that the State must ensure that even candidates selected for basic government posts possess minimum competence and ability to carry out their duties.

“The State, as the appointing authority, is expected to ensure minimum standards in recruitment even for reserved category, so that selected candidates are capable of performing basic duties satisfactorily, may be of Class-IV employee. A person who secures near zero or negative marks cannot reasonably be considered suitable,” the Court said.

The Bench also noted that the circumstances suggested two possible problems. Either the examination conducted for these entry-level posts was excessively difficult, or the authorities had failed to maintain reasonable recruitment standards.

The Court further pointed out that no proper explanation had been provided by the State for not prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the recruitment process. Such an approach, the Court indicated, raises concerns about transparency and fairness in public employment.

Taking note of the seriousness of the issue, the High Court directed the State government to provide a detailed explanation. It ordered the Principal Secretary of the concerned department to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for fixing such low cut-off marks and the steps proposed to address the issue.

The Bench also warned that failure to provide a satisfactory explanation could lead to serious consequences. It stated that the Court may draw adverse inferences and pass strict orders if the State fails to justify the recruitment criteria.

The case is scheduled for the next hearing on March 9, when the State government is expected to present its response before the Court.

During the proceedings, Additional Advocate General Kapil Prakash Mathur and Advocate Sandeep Maheshwari appeared for the State. The petitioner was represented by Advocates Harendar Neel, Amogh Gupta and Rohan Gupta.