Recruiting Authority Can Prescribe Minimum Threshold Marks If Advertisement Reserves Discretion

A bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan heard a batch of writ petitions challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s common order which had dismissed original applications by candidates who contested the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research’s (CSIR) prescription of minimum qualifying marks for Paper‑III of the Combined Administrative Services Examination‑2023 (CASE‑2023). The petitions raised the question whether CSIR was empowered to prescribe minimum threshold marks for Stage‑II (Paper‑III) after the recruitment process had commenced and whether such prescription vitiated the selection by altering the “rules of the game” mid‑way.

The Court held that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks by CSIR was within its competence because the Recruitment‑advertisement expressly reserved the discretion to fix “minimum threshold marks” and the thresholds were notified prior to the relevant stage of the examination. The Court noted reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Tej Prakash Pathak and observed that what was impermissible was a post‑evaluation change in criteria but not the fixing of benchmarks before the conduct of a stage. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is trite that a recruitment advertisement constitutes the charter governing the selection process. The rights of candidates and the discretion of the recruiting authority must, therefore, be examined primarily with reference to the express stipulations contained therein. In the present case, Clause 5‑A of the Recruitment‑advertisement, under the heading 'Scheme of Examination', categorically provides that 'Minimum threshold marks, wherever prescribed/required, shall be decided by the Competent Authority'. Additionally, the advertisement clarifies that the outlined process is 'suggestive only'. These stipulations unmistakably reserve discretion in favour of the Respondent‑CSIR to prescribe qualifying benchmarks at appropriate stages of the examination.” The Court further recorded that “the exercise of such power... cannot be characterised as an ex post facto introduction of a new criterion” where the threshold was announced before Paper‑III was held.

Background

The dispute arose from Advertisement No. E‑1/RC/2023/1 issued by CSIR on December 8, 2023, inviting applications for CASE‑2023 to fill 444 posts (76 Section Officers and 368 Assistant Section Officers). The advertisement stated that “Minimum threshold marks, wherever prescribed/required, would be decided by the Competent Authority” and described the scheme of examination as “suggestive only.” Stage‑I (Paper‑I and Paper‑II) took place in February 2024 and results with cut‑offs were published on June 3, 2024. CSIR issued a Notice dated June 28, 2024 prescribing minimum qualifying marks for Paper‑III, and Paper‑III was held on July 7, 2024. The petitioners failed to secure the prescribed minimum in Paper‑III and were not shortlisted for the interview for the post of SO; the final result was declared on January 2, 2025.

The petitioners assailed the Tribunal’s order which had dismissed their original applications on grounds that CSIR had reserved discretion to fix thresholds in the advertisement, the thresholds had been notified prior to Paper‑III, and candidates who participated without objection were estopped from challenging the process later. The High Court applied settled principles that a recruitment advertisement governed the selection process and that a recruiting authority could evolve selection methodology in the absence of statutory prohibition, so long as qualifying benchmarks were notified before the concerned stage and did not take candidates by surprise. The Court distinguished decisions where criteria were altered after written tests and on the eve of viva voce, and found no material to show the prescribed threshold was manifestly arbitrary, irrational or disproportionately high. A preliminary objection on non‑joinder of selected candidates was noted but not adjudicated as the challenge failed on merits.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s Impugned Order dated September 8, 2025, dismissed the writ petitions, and closed all pending applications. No interim directions were issued; the Court granted no relief to the petitioners.

Case Details: Case No.: W.P.(C) 17518/2025 & connected matters Case Title: Dinesh & Anr. v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research through its Director General & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Puja Jakhar; Mr. Harshit Prakash; Ms. Ekta Bharati; Mr. Satyam Dwivedi; Mr. Shrey; Mr. Gagandeep RM; Mr. Gurveer Lally; Mr. Indranil Chakravorty (among others as per cause list) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Advocate; Mr. Arun Sanwal; Mr. Aditya Mani Sharma; Mr. Rohan Mandal; Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC; Ms. Urvashi Basak (Government Pleader) (among others as per cause list)