The Madras High Court ruled that candidates who fail to secure qualifying marks cannot challenge a transparent recruitment process or demand filling of vacancies, dismissing an ex-serviceman’s plea against the RBI security guards selection in Chennai.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an ex-serviceman challenging the recruitment process for security guards in the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), holding that a candidate who fails to secure the qualifying marks cannot question the selection process or demand filling up of all notified vacancies in the absence of eligible candidates.
Justice T. Vinod Kumar, while rejecting the plea, observed that the selection process was conducted in a transparent manner and strictly in accordance with the eligibility criteria prescribed in the recruitment notification.
The petition was filed by P. Manimuthupandi, an ex-serviceman, who sought to quash the selection list released on May 28, 2019, and requested the court to direct RBI authorities to include his name in the list and appoint him as a security guard.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to a 2018 recruitment notification issued by the RBI to fill 19 security guard vacancies in the Chennai region. The petitioner claimed that he had successfully appeared for the written examination, medical examination, and certificate verification but was ultimately not selected.
He further argued that although 19 candidates were called for certificate verification, only 10 candidates were appointed, and therefore, all notified vacancies should have been filled by including eligible candidates like him.
ALSO READ: Rajasthan Paper Leak: High Court Cancels 2021 Sub-Inspector (SI) Recruitment Exam
Appearing for the RBI, advocate Chevanan Mohan submitted that the recruitment was carried out strictly as per the eligibility norms, including the requirement of securing minimum qualifying marks in the examination.
He informed the court that only 10 candidates met the qualifying standards, and the petitioner had failed to secure the required marks, making him ineligible for appointment.
High Court’s Observations
The court accepted the RBI’s submission and ruled that:
- The selection process was fair, transparent, and merit-based
- Candidates who secured higher marks than the petitioner were rightly appointed
- A candidate who fails to qualify cannot allege that the recruitment process was vitiated
- Authorities cannot be compelled to fill all notified vacancies if there are no adequately eligible candidates
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.