IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR and WMP Nos.10759, 10764, 10768 & 10772 of 2021 D.Sathish Kumar Petitioner in W.P.No.10138 of 2021 P.Sathesh Kumar Petitioner in W.P.No.10142 of 2021 R.Vignesh Petitioner in W.P.No.10145 of 2021 C.Pasupathi Petitioner in W.P.No.10147 of 2021 Vs

1. The Under Secretary for Government of India, Staff Selection Commission, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Block No.12, CGO-Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. 2.The Staff Selection Commission, Rep. by its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO-Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

3.The Directorate General, CRPF (Recruitment Branch), East Block - 07, Level-4, Sector-01, R.K.Puram, New Delhi – 110 066.

Respondents in all cases COMMON PRAYER Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the introduction of normalization of marks method in the selection process by way of 1 - 1/2018-P & P-I dated 07.02.2019 issued by the 1^st Respondent in the Recruitment of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA, SSF and Riflemen (GD) in Assam riffles examination conducted by the Respondents by their notification dated 21.07.2018 as illegal consequently direct the respondents to select the petitioner as Constable (GD).

In all cases:

For Petitioners: Mr.K.Thilageswaran For Respondents: Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekanandan Deputy Solicitor General Of India Assisted by Mr.R.Sanjay, Central Government Standing Counsel

COMMON ORDER

Heard Mr.K.Thilageswaran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Sanjay, learned Central Government Standing Counsel who lead by Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekanandan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the first respondent had issued notification dated 21.07.2018, informing the recruitment to the post of Constables in various agencies under Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF); and that in the notification issued, the mode of selection has been prescribed as computer based examination, Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Standard Test (PST), and Medical Examination; that the respondents after receiving the applications from the intending candidates, have issued notice titled “Important Notice” on 07.02.2019, stating that the selection of the candidates would be undertaken on the basis of normalisation of scores of candidates; that the aforesaid issuance of notice by the respondents after accepting the applications pursuant to the notification dated 21.07.2018, amounts to the respondents changing the rules of the game and the same cannot be permitted insofar as the notification for selection of Constables is concerned. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel had placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.

reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512

3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

4. The respondents by the counter affidavit contended that pursuant to the notification issued on 21.07.2018, the computer-based test was conducted from 11.02.2019 to 11.03.2019, over a period of one month; that having regard to the number of applications received, numbering to 50 lakhs, the respondents had conducted computer based examination over a period of 18 days within the period of 30 days; that in all 30 lakhs candidates have appeared for the examination; that the examination was conducted in 54 shifts over a period of time of 18 days; that the respondents have decided to normalize the scores of the candidates in order to arrive at uniformity of the marks secured by the candidates appearing in 54 shifts; that the respondents have issued the notice regarding the application of normalization of scores prior to the date of examination itself i.e., 07.02.2019 and as such the petitioners cannot claim that the process of selecti