Selection Committee Cannot Superimpose Additional Cut-Off Marks Not Prescribed In Rules: Supreme Court

"The rules of the game, mid-way, could not have been changed by the Selection Committee/SoUP to the detriment of a number of candidates," Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated July 24, 2026, held that a selection committee cannot superimpose an additional eligibility threshold or cut-off marks when statutory recruitment rules provide a specific, single mode of shortlisting.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih observed that fixing arbitrary qualifying marks outside the prescribed rules amounts to changing the rules of the game mid-way, thereby vitiating the entire selection process.

The case stems from the recruitment of Instructors in Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) by the State of Uttar Pradesh under advertisements issued in 2014 and 2015. The appellants, who possessed the Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate, challenged the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules 2014, which diluted the CITS requirement from an essential to a preferential qualification. After participating in the selection process and failing to qualify, the appellants approached the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed their collective petitions, prompting the present appeals.

The primary question before the court was whether the 2014 Rules were invalid for contravening the 1996 executive directions of the Central Government regarding mandatory qualifications. The court was also called upon to determine whether the selection committee acted arbitrarily by fixing an unprescribed cut-off mark to exclude candidates from the interview stage, resulting in hundreds of vacancies remaining unfilled.

Estoppel Against Challenging Selection Process Not Absolute

The State initially raised a preliminary objection that the appellants, having applied with full awareness that the CITS certificate was only desirable, were estopped from challenging the process. The Supreme Court upheld this objection in principle, noting that the candidates did not raise any dispute before participating in the written examination. However, the bench carved out an essential caveat, stating that a candidate can challenge a selection process if illegality or arbitrariness is heavily pronounced.

Arbitrariness In Selection Vitiates The Process

The court explained that a participating candidate neither expects an illegality to be pressed into service to rule out their candidature, nor can they be said to have accepted such illegality. The bench noted that if the selection process is demonstrated to be vitiated by systemic arbitrariness, the candidate could still be granted relief despite their initial participation without protest.

Rules Do Not Permit Unprescribed Eligibility Thresholds

Analyzing Rule 16(3)(b)(i) of the 2014 Rules, the court observed that the provision contemplated shortlisting candidates only when applications were received in disproportionately large numbers. In such an eventuality, the rules explicitly permitted restricting the candidates called for interviews to four times the number of vacancies. The court noted that this was the sole statutory mechanism provided for reducing the candidate pool.

"Once the rule-making authority has consciously provided only one mode of shortlisting, namely limiting the candidates to be called for interview to four times the number of vacancies where applications are received in large numbers, it was not open to the Selection Committee/SoUP to superimpose an additional eligibility threshold."

Exclusion Based Solely On Academic Cut-Offs Is Arbitrary

The bench found that the State's situation was exactly the converse of a high-volume application scenario. Despite 2,498 vacancies being advertised in 2014, offer letters could be issued to only about 2,200 candidates. The court observed that instead of an excess of eligible candidates, substantial advertised vacancies remained unfilled solely due to the Selection Committee prescribing arbitrary cut-off marks that found no mention in the 2014 Rules.

"Since there has been arbitrariness in State action, which has vitiated the process of selection including non-selection of the appellants, this is sufficient for us to consider the question of grant relief..."

Rules Of The Game Cannot Be Altered Mid-Way

The court strictly condemned the exclusion of the appellants through this arbitrary screening mechanism. The bench emphasised that the failure of the Selection Committee to follow the 2014 Rules to the tee could not be validated merely because the appellants had participated in the process. The candidates could not have visualized prior to the declaration of results that the authorities would deviate from the prescribed statutory procedure to their detriment.

Directions For Prospective Appointment

Finding that a large number of vacant posts were still available, the court refused to deny relief to the appellants merely on the ground of their advancing age over the past decade. The bench directed the State to consider the eligible appellants and impleaded candidates against currently vacant posts in the relevant disciplines. The authorities were instructed to hold interviews for these candidates at the earliest and determine their inter-se merit as per the rules.

Creation Of Supernumerary Posts If Required

To ensure complete justice, the court further clarified that if the number of eligible candidates exceeds the available vacancies, supernumerary posts must be created to accommodate them. The authorities were directed to pass reasoned orders if any appellant is declined an appointment, ensuring transparency in the remedial process.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, ordering that the appellants be offered appointments with prospective effect within four months of approaching the authorities. While the appointed candidates will not be entitled to back wages, seniority, or promotion for the previous period, the court directed that they will remain eligible for pension and gratuity benefits upon superannuation, subject to prevailing rules.

Date of Decision: 24 July 2026