Reducing cut-off marks after publishing results to accommodate ineligible candidates violates Article 14: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that reducing the cut-off marks after the publication of results only for the purpose of accommodating otherwise ineligible candidates, violates Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution of India [Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others]..A division bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh, therefore, disapproved the decision of a departmental selection committee in Gujarat to reduce the qualifying marks for the post of Supervisor Instructor Class III after the publication of results..The Court was informed that this was done to facilitate the appointment of candidates belonging to a special category comprising women, persons with disabilities and former members of the armed forces.."Fixing cut-off marks for a particular category has got a rationale behind it. Reducing it only for the purpose of providing employment to a particular category, when the others have already acquired some right would be an affront to Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the Court said. .The Court found that the decision to reduce the cut-off, in this case, was not based on any objective criteria or the suitability of the candidate, but for extraneous reasons, "to accommodate otherwise ineligible candidates." .The bench opined that once cut-off marks are fixed on a conscious consideration of the marks needed to be eligible for a post, it could not be reduced without "a sound reason that the reduced marks also would be sufficient to be suitable for that post.".The Court was dealing with a challenge to the decision of the Gujarat government to relax the cut-off marks for candidates belonging to a special category comprising of women, persons with disabilities, and ex-servicemen when it came to recruitments for the post of Supervisor Instructor. Pertinently, this was done after the results were published..The State government decided to treat it as a form of special reservation because the percentage of candidates expected to fill the post from such a category (which is ordinarily classified as a horizontal reservation category) was found inadequate..Notably, prior to this decision, the State had informed if all the reserved seats are not filled by reserved-category candidates, then such seats could be allotted to other eligible candidates (including general category candidates)..The government's decision to relax the cut-off for the special category, therefore, affected the chances of getting these spots for others falling outside the special category..Hence, aspirants affected by the decision challenged the move before the High Court. An adverse ruling by a division bench of the Gujarat High Court prompted them to move the Supreme Court in appeal..The Supreme Court found that the selection committee went against the set rules when it had reduced the cut-off marks to facilitate the appointment of candidates belonging to the horizontal reservation by treating it as a vertical reservation..The Court further observed that the advertisement originally issued was binding and that changes could only have been introduced by way of an amendment "and nothing else.".The Court noted that even if such an amendment was made, it had to be in line with Article 14. An amendment could not have been introduced to give an entry for a special reservation, when rights had already accrued to a candidate not belonging to such a special reservation category, the Court added..The Court further held that neither the State nor the selection committee has the unbridled power to modify the selection process and reduce cut-off marks after the results are published. Hence, the Court found the High Court ruling in favour of the challenged decision to be unsustainable. All the same, the Court acknowledged that the decision under challenge had a laudable object. Therefore, it decided to moderate the impact of its decision with respect to those candidates from the special category who had obtained a favourable ruling from the division bench of the High Court. These private respondents were directed to be considered in the horizontal reserved category spots, provided that the permissible reservation limit was not exceeded and without upsetting the appointment of the appellants and others similarly placed. .Senior Advocate PS Patwalia appeared for the appellants. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared for the private respondents. Advocate Archana Dave Pathak appeared for the State of Gujarat..[Read Judgment]