Retrospective fixation of minimum qualifying marks after exam result declaration changes rules of game impermissibly; candidates in initial combined merit list entitled to consideration without such benchmarks.

ORDER

(ORAL Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Since a common question of facts and law is involved in the present OAs, with the consent of all parties the OAs were being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted primarily from O.A. No. 2082/2024 (Pinki v. Employees State Insurance sHitpicupta Corporation (ESIC) & Ors.) SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.20

2. In the instant O.A. the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) To quash and set-side the impugned order dated 15.02.2024. (Annexure A/I).

(ii) Direct the respondent to appoint the applicant on the post of Post of Cook/Cook mate with all consequential benefits.

(iii) To allow the OA with exemplary costs.

(iv) To pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts circumstances of the case.”

3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are aggrieved of the impugned notification dated 15.02.2024. The applicants were found of short of marks and not recommended for the appointment. The applicants’ name in O.A. No. 2082/2024 was at serial no. 10 in Haryana Zone and in O.A. No. 2081/2024 the applicants’ name in the select list was at serial no. 19 in Haryana Zone in the combine merit list of the candidates appeared in computer based test on 22.05.2016 for the post of COOK. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that though a combined merit list was prepared, however, region wise advertisement was published and the vacancies were different for different regions. In this regard, he draws attention to para 4.3 of the O.A. and states that it is the case of the applicant that the rule of the game has been changed in mid way after publishing the merit list, which is resulted in downgrading the merit position of applicants herein.

3.1. In identical situation, learned counsel for the applicant draws reference to the facts of the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 714/2017 (batch matter) decided on 15.02.2023 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. ESI Corporation and Ors., relevant para of which reads as under:-

8. In support of his averments, the learned counsel for the respondents draws our attention to para 6 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:

“6. The proposal for fixing of Minimum Qualifying Marks/ Qualifying Standard under _ different categories was sent to Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India in the month of June, 2016. The issue was examined by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India. As per directions of Chairman, ESI Corporation (Hon'ble Minister, Labour & Employment, Govt. of India), the Minimum Qualifying Marks/ Qualifying Standard under different categories were fixed vide O.M. dated 02.01.2017 as under:

Copy of the OM dated 02.01.2017 is enclosed herewith as Annexure R-4.

9. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have further contended that the selection for the post of Laundry Operator was made on the basis of performance of the candidates in the Computer Based Examination and only those candidates who had qualified the examination were considered for selection. So far as fixation of benchmark is concerned, it is the prerogative of the concerned department to fix the qualifying marks for different categories with regard to technical and professional requirement for the post. A concise decision was taken by ESIC in consultation with Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India to fix standards for the purpose of selection for different c