The Rajasthan High Court asked the State government to explain why cut-off marks as low as zero were fixed for recruiting Class IV employees in reserved categories. Justice Anand Sharma called the situation “shocking,” saying it raises serious questions about maintaining standards in public employment.
The Rajasthan High Court asked the State government to explain why cut-off marks as low as zero were fixed for recruiting Class IV government employees in certain reserved categories.
Justice Anand Sharma called the situation “shocking,” saying it demands serious attention because it raises questions about maintaining basic standards in public employment.
The Court said,
“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 order was issued on a writ petition concerning a recent recruitment drive for Class IV staff in a government department, where cut-off marks for some reserved categories were reported to be as low as 0.0033.
The petitioner’s complaint was that his application was rejected because he received negative marks, despite there being no prescribed minimum qualifying score.
Describing the situation as unacceptable, the Court suggested that either the exam was unduly difficult for such entry-level roles or that recruitment standards were not properly upheld.
The bench also noted the absence of any adequate explanation for failing to set minimum qualifying marks.
Rajasthan High Court remarked,
“A person who secures near zero or negative marks cannot reasonably be considered suitable.“
The Court ordered the State’s counsel to submit an affidavit from the Principal Secretary of the relevant department detailing the reasons for these anomalous cut-offs and outlining measures to rectify “such objectionable situation.”
The Bench warned that if the explanation is unsatisfactory, it may take the matter seriously and impose stringent orders while drawing adverse inferences.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on March 9.
Additional Advocate General Kapil Prakash Mathur and Advocate Sandeep Maheshwari represented the State, while Advocates Harendar Neel, Amogh Gupta and Rohan Gupta appeared for the petitioner.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar S/o Pyarelal v The State Of Rajasthan