IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that courts will not interfere with assessment processes unless there is clear evidence of absurd marking. It also clarifies the interpretation of age limits and eligibility criteria in the context of recruitment processes.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee; CJ. - The respondents have not been called upon.

2. Two primary issues have been raised by the appellants in assailing an order dated August 17, 2022 by which the writ petition filed by the 66 appellants was dismissed. Of the 66 appellants, it is the case of 46 appellants that they have been unduly discriminated against on the ground of age. A further case has been made out in respect of 12 other appellants to the effect that they were unfairly marked by the high-powered committee while reconsidering the original assessment made. As far as the remaining appellants are concerned, no special case has been made out in their favour. In a sense, the dismissal of the appeal qua the balance eight writ petitioners has been accepted.

3. As to the erroneous marking of the 12 candidates, the appellants rely on the records before the Single Bench. A chart had been prepared where the individual grievances of the 12 candidates had been indicated.

4. At the outset, it may do well to appreciate the principle before embarking on the assessment on such aspect. A Court is not an expert to assess the competence of participants at a public examination for a particular appointment; far less to go into the adequacy, or the lack thereof, as to the marks alloted. The Court is excited to look into any erroneous marking if it plainly appears to be absurd in the sense that no reasonable person in the position of the examiner could have assessed it in the manner it has been. It is a high test that a person questioning the assessment has to pass before the Court requires a reassessment to be made. A mere mistake or the failure to dot a few i's or cross a few t's would not prompt the Court to require the assessment to be gone into afresh.

5. In all fairness, it must be recorded that the cases of the first three on the list of 12 were pursued. As regards writ petitioner No.2, the highpowered committee which re-examined the marks allotted indicated that the candidate did not deserve to get eight additional marks because of the quality of the certificate course undergone by such candidate and the requirements in terms of a notification of November 24, 2008. To justify that the candidate was entitled to the eight additional marks originally allotted, it is suggested that the candidate had undergone two consecutive years of training as a block resource person and was, as such, entitled to a certificate equivalent to BTC.

6. These are matters which are not justiciable. As long as it is evident that the authority tasked with a duty had applied its mind to the matter and had taken relevant considerations into account, the Court in exercise of its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution will not act as an appellate forum.

7. In respect of the writ petitioner No.19, the high-powered committee observed that such candidate did not possess a graduation certificate as on the date of the advertisement, though at the time of presentation of papers post the selection process, a graduation certificate was produced. Ordinarily, the principle is that when certain qualifications are specified entitling candidates to apply for a particular post, such qualifications ought to have been obtained by the stipulated date, if there is any specification in such regard, or by the time the application is made. The subsequent acquisition of any essential or additional qualification would not be taken into consideration.

8. In the case of the writ petitioner No.19, the high-powered committee observed that though the candidate did not possess any graduation certificate on the date of the advertisement yet he was given marks for graduation. Strictly speaking, since the advertisement did not specify the date within which the additional qualification had to be obtained, the committee should have considered the candidate eligible to receive additional marks for graduation if the candidate had obtained such additional qualification by the time that he applied for the pos