Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Rejecting the argument that 78 minimum qualifying mark was unreasonable and arbitrary, in that case, in which promotions were made from Scale-I to Scale-II, their Lordships said as follows:

"18.Whether the guidelines/rules adopted for assessing the minimum necessary merit by prescribing marks under several heads or by prescribing a specific minimum mark, is reasonable or arbitrary, would depend upon the facts of each case. If it is demonstrated that the minimum marks were fixed with the intention of favouring someone or to specifically exclude someone, the courts may interfere. Similarly, where the minimum marks are shown to have been fixed to defeat or nullify the mode of seniority-cum-merit for promotion, there may be a cause for interference. In other cases, there is very little scope to interfere with the procedure adopted to ascertain the minimum required merit."

As noted hereinbefore in this case the petitioners got opportunity of challenging the circular dated March 11, 2006 fixing the "cut off marks for final selection" at 60. They chose to participate in the process and take a chance. They did not find any reason to say that 60 was fixed arbitrarily and unreasonably. Even when they questioned the process by filing this case they did not take a specific plea that "cut off marks for final selection" at 60 was arbitrary and unreasonable.

Hence in the absence of such a case, there is no reason for this Court to express an opinion whether fixation of the "cut off marks for final selection" at 60 was arbitrary and unreasonable. Any opinion expressed by the Court will amount to upsetting the decision of the authority fixing the mark, without giving it any opportunity to justify why it fixed it at 60. This Court is not supposed to substitute its wisdom for that of the authority competent to fix the "cut off marks for final selection."