Cut-off Marks - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by re-adjudicating matters already decided in the original writ petition. The Court reiterated that review is not an appeal and cannot be invoked to re-examine a contention merely because a different view is possible. The scope of review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. Facts Of The Case: The Madhya Pradesh High Court issued an advertisement for recruiting Civil Judges (Entry Level) under amended rules that prescribed new eligibility criteria. The respondents, Jyotsna Dohalia and another, participated in the preliminary examination but failed to secure the cut-off marks of 113. Their writ petition challenging the result was dismissed by the High Court on May 7, 2024, which held ...

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that reserved category candidates availing relaxations in age or physical standards are barred from migrating to unreserved vacancies if the governing recruitment rules impose such an embargo. Conversely, relaxations in physical standards based on gender or ethnicity, absent a specific rule, do not automatically preclude such migration. The applicability depends on the explicit provisions of the relevant recruitment rules or office memoranda. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a recruitment drive initiated by the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in 2013 to fill various ancillary posts. The employment notification provided age and physical measurement relaxations for candidates from SC/ST and OBC categories. A key issue arose regarding candidat...

Tag: Cut-off Marks

Supreme Court Reins In High Court’s Review Power in Judicial Recruitment Case

Supreme Court Clarifies: Reserved Candidates Availing Age, Physical Relaxations Can’t Migrate to General Quota