Madras High Court
D.Sathish Kumar vs The Under Secretary For on 11 February, 2026
WP Nos.10138, 10142, 10145 & 10147 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WP Nos.10138, 10142, 10145 & 10147 of 2021
and
WMP Nos.10759, 10764, 10768 & 10772 of 2021
D.Sathish Kumar Petitioner in W.P.No.10138 of 2021
P.Sathesh Kumar Petitioner in W.P.No.10142 of 2021
R.Vignesh Petitioner in W.P.No.10145 of 2021
C.Pasupathi Petitioner in W.P.No.10147 of 2021
Vs
1. The Under Secretary for
Government of India,
Staff Selection Commission,
Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions,
Block No.12, CGO-Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.
2.The Staff Selection Commission,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO-Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.
3.The Directorate General,
CRPF (Recruitment Branch),
East Block - 07, Level-4, Sector-01,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi – 110 066.
Respondents in all cases
COMMON PRAYER Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the introduction of
normalization of marks method in the selection process by way of 1 - 1/2018-P
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
WP Nos.10138, 10142, 10145 & 10147 of 2021
& P-I dated 07.02.2019 issued by the 1st Respondent in the Recruitment of
Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA, SSF and
Riflemen (GD) in Assam riffles examination conducted by the Respondents by
their notification dated 21.07.2018 as illegal consequently direct the
respondents to select the petitioner as Constable (GD).
In all cases:
For Petitioners: Mr.K.Thilageswaran
For Respondents: Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekanandan
Deputy Solicitor General Of India
Assisted by
Mr.R.Sanjay,
Central Government Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
Heard Mr.K.Thilageswaran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Sanjay, learned Central Government Standing Counsel who lead by Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekanandan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and perused the record.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the first respondent had issued notification dated 21.07.2018, informing the recruitment to the post of Constables in various agencies under Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF); and that in the notification issued, the mode of selection has been prescribed as computer based examination, Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Standard Test (PST), and Medical Examination; that the respondents after receiving the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm ) WP Nos.10138, 10142, 10145 & 10147 of 2021 applications from the intending candidates, have issued notice titled “Important Notice” on 07.02.2019, stating that the selection of the candidates would be undertaken on the basis of normalisation of scores of candidates; that the aforesaid issuance of notice by the respondents after accepting the applications pursuant to the notification dated 21.07.2018, amounts to the respondents changing the rules of the game and the same cannot be permitted insofar as the notification for selection of Constables is concerned. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel had placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.
4. The respondents by the counter affidavit contended that pursuant to the notification issued on 21.07.2018, the computer-based test was conducted from 11.02.2019 to 11.03.2019, over a period of one month; that having regard to the number of applications received, numbering to 50 lakhs, the respondents had conducted computer based examination over a period of 18 days within the period of 30 days; that in all 30 lakhs candidates have appeared for the examination; that the examination was conducted in 54 shifts over a period of time of 18 days; that the respondents have decided to normalize the scores of 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm ) WP Nos.10138, 10142, 10145 & 10147 of 2021 the candidates in order to arrive at uniformity of the marks secured by the candidates appearing in 54 shifts; that the respondents have issued the notice regarding the application of normalization of scores prior to the date of examination itself i.e., 07.02.2019 and as such the petitioners cannot claim that the process of selection has been completed by the respondents by changing the rules of selection.
5. On behalf of the respondents, it is further contended that the reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court K.Manjusree case (supra), would not advance the case of the petitioners, as in the facts of the present case, the candidates were made aware of the selection process on the basis of normalisation of scores even before appearing for the examination.
6. It is further contended that when the selection and examination of candidates is spread over multiple days and was undertaken in different shifts, the process of normalisation of the scores, is an accepted form of selection and as such the petitioner cannot claim to be in a disadvantageous position, after taking part in the selection process, as the selection process had commenced only when the candidates who had submitted applications, recorded their attendance, and taking part in the computer-based examination. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm ) WP Nos.10138, 10142, 10145 & 10147 of 2021
7. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Deepak Kumar and 62 ors. Vs. Union of India and 8 ors. Made in W.A.No.6334 of 2021, dated 01.07.2021 wherein challenge to the same said modification was subject matter and the decision of the Kerala High Court in its Judgment dated 26.02.2021 in WP (C) No. 21382 of 2019.
8. I have taken note of all the respective contentions.
9. Though the primary contention of the petitioners is that the respondents by initial notification dated 21.07.2018 having prescribed the selection process to be based on computer-based examination and the petitioners, on the basis of the said selection process, having applied under the aforesaid notification and the respondents by subsequent notification issued on 07.02.2019, just before four days prior to the commencement of the examination, declared that the selection would be based on the normalization of the scores of the candidates; and that the same amounts to change in the selection process, it is to be noted that when selection is undertaken to recruit large number of vacancies and where selection process is spread over a period of time, the authorities in order to maintain consistency and uniformity, are required to undertake evaluation of the answer scripts by applying uniform principle. The said principle was approved by the apex Court in Sanjay Singh and anr. Vs. U.P.Public Service 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm ) WP Nos.10138, 10142, 10145 & 10147 of 2021 Commission reported in 2007 (3) SCC 720. Further, the fact that the process of normalization, would not amount to change in selection criteria.
10. In a challenge to the same said notification before the High Court of Allahabad in Deepak Kumar case cited supra, the Court by referring to the decisions of the Division Bench of the said Court in Atul Kumar Dwivedi and Ors. Vs. State of U.P and ors in W.A.No.23733 of 2018, dated 11.09.2019 took a similar view that the normalisation process does not amount to change in selection. A similar view was also taken by the Kerala High Court in its Judgement dated 26.02.2021 in WP (C) No. 21382 of 2019, after referring to the Judgment in Sanjay Singh case (supra), and had held that the formula or method by which the normalisation is carried out by the Staff Selection Commission, does not require an examination at the hands of the Court and is rejected the challenge.
11. Since, the petitioner has also challenged the same said notification and the subsequent notification issued on 07.02.2019 claiming the same amounts change in selection criteria, which contention has been negatived by the High Court of Allahabad as well as Kerala High Court, this Court also finds that having regard to the larger scale of recruitment undertaken, mere selection of candidates by applying the normalization process, would not amount to change 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm ) WP Nos.10138, 10142, 10145 & 10147 of 2021 in selection criteria, particularly when the said process has been notified even before the petitioners sat for the computer-based examination which had commenced on 11.02.2019 till 11.03.2019 for the petitioners to claim that the same amounts to rule of the game being altered after the game is played.
12. In view of the above, the present writ petitions as filed are devoid of merit and accordingly, are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11-02-2026 vum Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No To
1.The Under Secretary for Government of India, Staff Selection Commission, Ministry of Personnel, Public, Grievances and Pensions, Block No. 12, CGO-Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
2.The Staff Selection Commission, Rep by its Chairman, Block No. 12, CGO-Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
3.The Directorate General, CRPF (Recruitment Branch), East Block - 07, Level-4, Sector-01, R. K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm ) WP Nos.10138, 10142, 10145 & 10147 of 2021 T.VINOD KUMAR J.
vum WP Nos.10138, 10142, 10145 & 10147 of 2021 and WMP Nos.10759, 10764, 10768 & 10772 of 2021 11-02-2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )