Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court

Judicial Review in Recruitment Matters is Limited – Courts Cannot Interfere Unless There is Manifest Arbitrariness - Orissa High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge regarding the fixation of cut-off marks in the recruitment process for music teachers under the Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya Sangathan (OAVS).

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M.S. Sahoo ruled that OAVS had the discretion to determine cut-off marks under Clause 7(a) of its recruitment modalities and that courts should not interfere in such policy decisions unless there is demonstrable arbitrariness or illegality.

Dismissing the State’s appeal, the Court observed: "The discretion to fix cut-off marks is vested with the recruiting authority, and unless it is shown that the process is arbitrary or unlawful, judicial interference is unwarranted."

The Court upheld the Single Judge’s direction that cut-off marks must be determined based on all three parts of the Computer-Based Test (CBT), rather than just Parts II and III, rejecting the State’s contention that Part I should be excluded.

The dispute arose from the recruitment process for music teachers under OAVS, where the fixation of cut-off marks in the Computer-Based Test (CBT) became a point of contention. The recruitment process comprised:

• Part I: English (20 marks) and Odia (20 marks)

• Part II: Current Affairs (30 marks) and Reasoning (30 marks)

• Part III: Subject-specific questions (100 marks)

• Performance Test: 20 marks

• Interview: 20 marks

According to Clause 8.6 of the Recruitment Modalities, a candidate had to qualify Part I before their marks in Parts II and III could be considered. However, Clause 7(a) of the Selection Procedure granted OAVS the authority to decide cut-off marks at its discretion.

The State of Odisha argued that only Parts II and III should be considered in fixing cut-off marks, contending that Part I was merely a qualifying section. The Single Judge, however, ruled that cut-off marks must include all three parts, prompting the State to file an appeal.

Cut-Off Marks to be Determined Based on All Three Parts of CBT

The State relied on Clause 8.6, which outlined that the final merit list should consider Parts II and III, while Part I was only a qualifying section.

The Court rejected this argument, stating: "Clause 8.6 describes the components of the CBT but does not override Clause 7(a), which grants OAVS discretion in fixing cut-off marks. If the CBT consists of three parts, all three must be taken into account."

The Bench emphasized that the entire Computer-Based Test must be considered as a single unit, and therefore, cut-off marks should include all its components.

Recruiting Authority’s Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Scope for Judicial Interference

The State contended that OAVS had exercised its discretion in excluding Part I while fixing the cut-off, and thus, the Court should not interfere.

Rejecting this claim, the Bench held: “Judicial review in recruitment matters is limited to ensuring fairness and absence of arbitrariness. There is no inherent right of candidates to demand a particular method of evaluation unless recruitment rules explicitly prescribe it.”

The Court reiterated that Clause 7(a) granted OAVS discretion, and since there was no evidence of arbitrariness or violation of recruitment modalities, there was no reason to overturn the Single Judge’s ruling.

"The power to determine the cut-off marks rests solely with the recruiting authority, and the court will not intervene unless the process is patently illegal or irrational."

Review Judgment Confirmed Original Decision – No Grounds for Appeal

The State further relied on a subsequent review judgment dated December 14, 2023, which modified the Single Judge’s order by adding performance test marks to the cut-off calculation.

The Bench, however, held that this modification did not alter the core principle that all three parts of CBT should be considered.

“The review judgment reinforced the original ruling rather than undermining it. The performance test addition does not negate the requirement to consider all three parts of the CBT.”

Thus, the Court found no substantive grounds to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision.

"We reiterate confirmation of the judgment dated 24th February 2023. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed."

With this ruling, the Court upheld the method of calculating cut-off marks based on all three parts of CBT, ensuring transparency and fairness in the recruitment process.

"The recruitment process followed by OAVS was in accordance with its prescribed modalities, and no interference is warranted in its policy decision."

Date of decision: 30/01/2025