Minimum qualifying marks for interviews cannot be challenged post-participation if the candidate is aware of them beforehand.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2026

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 06.02.2024 of the learned Single Judge dismissing WP (C) No. 21048 of 2022 filed by the appellant. Respondents were the respondents in the said W.P.(C).

2. Appellant who is a person with disability as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act , 2016 had filed the W.P.(C), inter alia seeking to quash Exhibit P3 notification issued by the 2nd respondent to the extent it prescribed 35% as the minimum marks for qualifying the interview and to be included in Exhibit P12 ranked list and a declaration that the appellant is fully eligible to be included in Exhibit P12 ranked list, at the appropriate rank to be assigned on the basis of the combined marks in the written test and the interview.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C), inter alia holding that the prescription of a minimum of 35% of marks for the interview had been approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice as per the approved scheme and it is based on the said scheme that the cut off mark of 35% was included in Exhibit P3 notification. It was held that having voluntarily and with full knowledge submitted his application for the post of Office Attendant, the appellant was fully cognizant, at the time of submission of the application in terms of Exhibit P4, that securing a minimum of 35% marks was a mandatory requirement for inclusion in the final ranked list upon qualifying in the written examination. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the W.P.(C), this Writ Appeal has been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents respectively.

5. Contentions of the appellant in brief:

● The judgment impugned had been rendered without proper appreciation of the legal and factual aspects, and that the same is fit to be set aside.

● The finding of the learned Single Judge that the mandates of Rule 16 of the Kerala High Court Service (Method of Recruitment) Rules, 2009 (for short 'Recruitment Rules, 2009') had to be read along with the stipulation in Cause 8 of Exhibit P3 notification and that it cannot be considered in isolation, is contrary to law and erroneous.

● In so far as the Recruitment Rules of 2009 clearly stipulates that marks awarded at the interview shall be added to the marks awarded to the candidates at the written examination and/or skill test and the ranked list shall be prepared of all eligible candidates on the basis of the total marks awarded, Exhibit P3 notification could only have been drawn up within the fours of the said Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules, 2009.

● Clause 8 (ii) of Exhibit P3 notification is drawn contrary to and in violation of the mandate under Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules.

● Being statutory in nature, the Rule must be interpreted independently and cannot be read in conjunction with Clause 8 of Exhibit P3 notification, as the latter is merely an executive order.

● It is trite that statutory rules prevail over executive orders, and that executive instructions cannot override or supersede statutory provisions.

● Prescription of the minimum marks in the interview is contrary to the stipulations in Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules and cannot be sustained.

● The finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant is precluded from challenging clause 8 (ii) of Exhibit P3 notification after having participated in the selection process is legally unsustainable. Reliance is placed in this respect on the dictum in Krishnarai (dead) through LRs and others v. Banaras Hindu University Through Registrar and others [2022 KHC Onl