The court upheld that non-selection in a recruitment process is valid if candidates do not meet prescribed cut-off marks, reinforcing the necessity for transparency.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.02.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD)No.6863 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5427 of 2017 N.Beaulin Thanka Dev ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Secretary Cum General Manager, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005

2. The Principal Secretary/ Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue of Writ of Declaration, to declare the non selection of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Engineer 2015 as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Assistant Engineer 2015 with consequential benefits, within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar For Respondents : M/s.R.Satheesh Standing Counsel

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the non selection of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Engineer 2015 as illegal and also seeking consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Assistant Engineer 2015 with consequential benefits, within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. The petitioner has qualified as B.E(Mechanical) with 70% marks from Anna University. He has also acquired M.B.A. from S.R.M. University and he belongs to Backward Class community. The petitioner was working as Management Trainee at Bangalore in M/s Bosch Limited, from 19.05.2014. The respondents in order to recruit to the post of Assistant Engineer has issued an advertisement on 16.10.2015 for filling up 100 vacancies. The petitioner has submitted an application and participated in the recruitment process. However, the petitioner was not selected for the said post. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The contention of the writ petitioner is that though he has secured good marks both in the written examination as well as interview the respondents have not selected the petitioner. The further contention is that the respondents have not published the marks obtained by all the candidates in the written examination thereby the selection process there is no transperancy.

4. The respondents have filed counter stating that the petitioner has secured only 55.65 marks in the written examination which is below of the cut off marks prescribed for the Backward Class general category. The cut off mark for the Backward Class general category is 60.628 marks. It is further stated that the selection process was conducted in a transperant manner wherein the first level written examination was conducted. Based on the process, candidates who were secured higher marks in the written examination selected for oral interview and certificate verification. The relevant details also published in the official website, in the local newspaper and notified the candidates selected for oral interview and certificate verification. Since the petitioner has obained lesser marks in the written examinaiton he was not called for the interview and certificate verification. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be considered and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. After considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioner has obtained only 55.65 marks, whereas the cut off marks is 60.628 the petitioner has not qualified in the written examination itself. Therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the petitoner's candidature and not called for the certificate verification and interview. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. The contention of the pe