Rajasthan HC Quashes Class-IV Select List for Nine Categories After Candidates With Near-Zero Marks Were Appointed

The Rajasthan High Court set aside selections in nine reserved categories of a 53,750-post Class-IV recruitment after finding that over 1,200 candidates with raw negative marks were included through normalisation, with cut-off marks as low as 0.0035 out of 200. The State has been directed to frame a minimum-qualifying-marks policy within three months.

Justice Anand Sharma, sitting singly at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, on 22 May 2026 quashed the select list for nine reserved categories in the Rajasthan Class-IV Direct Recruitment Examination-2024 and directed a fresh merit exercise. The judgment arose from two writ petitions filed by candidates who were excluded from selection despite, they argued, vacancies remaining unfilled in their categories. What the Court found on examining the record went well beyond the individual grievances: more than 1,200 candidates who had scored negative raw marks had been carried into the select list through the normalisation process, with cut-off marks in several categories settling at 0.0035 out of a maximum of 200. The Court held that permitting such selections violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and was irreconcilable with the efficiency mandate in Article 335.

The Recruitment and the Petitioners' Grievance

The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board issued an advertisement on 12 December 2024 for recruitment to 52,453 posts of Class-IV Employees under the Rajasthan Class IV Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999. Subsequent corrigendum advertisements dated 3 March 2025 and 12 January 2026 revised the total upward to 53,750 posts, split between 48,200 posts for non-scheduled areas and 5,550 for scheduled areas.

The advertisement prescribed a written examination of 200 marks with negative marking of one-third marks for every incorrect answer. It also stipulated that if the examination was conducted in multiple shifts, normalisation would be applied. The examination was held across six shifts between 19 September 2025 and 21 September 2025. A model answer key was published on 17 October 2025, the result was declared on 16 January 2026, and a final answer key followed on 20 January 2026.

Vinod Kumar, the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3098/2026, applied under the OBC-NCL (Ex-servicemen) category and appeared in the morning shift on 19 September 2025. After normalisation, he was assigned marks of (-0.6508) and was not selected. The petitioner in the connected S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4812/2026, Anju, appeared under the OBC-NCL (Widow) category and raised an identical grievance.

Both petitioners contended that vacancies remained unfilled in their respective categories and that, in the absence of any prescribed minimum qualifying marks, candidates securing negative marks could not be declared ineligible if they otherwise fell within the zone of consideration. They also challenged the normalisation methodology, asserting that the equi-percentile formula reduced marks of first-shift candidates while increasing marks of candidates from other shifts.

The Board's Defence and What the Record Revealed

The respondent-Board opposed both petitions. It submitted that the recruitment was conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules of 1999 and a notification dated 17 October 2024 issued by the State Government prescribing the examination scheme. On the petitioners' core argument, the Board maintained that public employment is governed by comparative merit and not merely by the existence of vacancies, and that a candidate securing negative marks after normalisation falls outside the zone of merit.

On the OBC (Ex-servicemen) vacancy question specifically, the Board explained that Ex-servicemen reservation is a horizontal reservation category and that candidates belonging to OBC (Ex-servicemen) who secured higher merit had been adjusted against General (Ex-servicemen) seats. No separate vacancy therefore remained in that sub-category.

The Board also relied on its own Revised Instructions for Preparation of Examination Results dated 31 May 2017, which provided that a candidate securing zero or negative marks shall not be selected under any circumstances, even where no minimum qualifying marks are prescribed. The Board further stated that the petitioner in the lead petition had marked option “E” for all questions, deliberately not attempting the paper.

When the Court examined the original record, however, a different picture emerged. The Minutes of the 415th meeting of the Board dated 15 January 2026 showed that a merit list of 20,33,127 successful candidates had been prepared against the 53,750 posts. The minutes recorded that since no minimum qualifying marks were prescribed, candidates securing zero or less than zero marks were declared unsuccessful — but the minutes were silent on the more than 1,200 candidates whose raw negative marks had been converted into positive marks through normalisation, even though those normalised marks remained negligibly above zero.

The Court found that the Board's own 2017 instructions, which contemplated a separate decision to prescribe minimum qualifying marks where merit was found to be extremely low, were not considered at all during the finalisation of the present selection. Despite cut-off marks in several categories falling to virtually zero after normalisation, the question of prescribing a minimum benchmark was never deliberated upon.

Cut-Off Marks That Triggered Constitutional Scrutiny

The select list data placed before the Court showed the following normalised cut-off marks for nine reserved categories:

• General – Ex-serviceman: 0.0035
• SC-Widow: 0.0035
• ST-Widow: 0.0035
• Gen-EWS-Widow: 0.017
• OBC-Widow: 0.0035
• MBC-Widow: 0.033
• SAH-General: 0.0307
• SAH-Female: 0.0035
• SAH-Widow: 3.8805

The Court also reproduced illustrative entries from the select list showing candidates with raw marks ranging from -0.4131 to -0.5556 whose normalised marks ranged from 0.1530 down to 0.1074 — still negligibly above zero. Over 1,200 such candidates appeared in the list.

When the Court first took up the matter on 18 February 2026, it directed the respondents to explain the rationale for not prescribing minimum qualifying marks. On the subsequent date, the Court noted that different State departments were shifting responsibility onto one another. The affidavit eventually filed by the Secretary, Department of Personnel, attributed the conduct of the examination, issuance of the answer key, declaration of cut-off marks and determination of merit entirely to the Board, while the Board in turn pointed to the Administrative Reforms Department. The Court found the affidavit conspicuously silent on whether the State considered candidates scoring 0.0035 out of 200 capable of discharging even basic duties.

The Court's Constitutional Reasoning

Justice Sharma framed the principal issue as whether the State can constitutionally permit public appointments in favour of candidates who have secured virtually zero or negative marks without prescribing any minimum benchmark of suitability.

The Court held that the absence of an express rule prescribing minimum qualifying marks does not absolve the State of its constitutional obligation to maintain minimum standards of fairness, reasonableness and suitability. Every executive action of the State must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 14. Selecting candidates who scored 0.0035 out of 200 was held to be ex facie arbitrary and irrational.

On the reservation argument, the Court was careful to distinguish permissible relaxation from complete abandonment of standards. It invoked Article 335 of the Constitution, which mandates that while considering claims of members of reserved categories, maintenance of efficiency of administration must also be kept in view. The Court relied on M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2006 (8) SCC 212, for the proposition that the efficiency principle under Article 335 forms part of the basic framework governing public employment.

The Court also drew on Dr. Sadhna Devi & Others v. State of U.P. & Others, (1997) 3 SCC 90, where the Supreme Court held that the State, having chosen to hold a test and having prescribed minimum qualifying marks, cannot thereafter dispense with that requirement for special category candidates. And on S. Vinod Kumar & Another v. Union of India & Others, (1996) 6 SCC 580, the Court noted the Supreme Court's observation that a provision for lower qualifying marks or lesser level of evaluation is not permissible in the matter of promotions by virtue of Article 335.

Applying those principles, the Court held that selection of candidates whose original raw marks were negative and whose normalised marks were as low as 0.0035 out of 200 was wholly inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of maintaining minimum standards. The Court also addressed the normalisation process directly: normalisation is intended to balance variations in difficulty level between different shifts, not to create artificial merit where none exists. Using it to elevate candidates who had otherwise failed to demonstrate bare minimum merit was impermissible.

The Court further observed that if the examination was genuinely so difficult that candidates across categories could not secure basic marks, the examination process itself was fundamentally defective. If the examination was of ordinary standard, then selection of candidates scoring near zero demonstrated complete absence of minimum suitability. In either case, the selections could not be sustained.

Scope of the Quashing and Directions Issued

The Court was precise about what it was setting aside. The quashing was confined to the select list insofar as it included candidates selected for the nine categories — General-Ex-serviceman, SC-Widow, ST-Widow, Gen-EWS-Widow, OBC-Widow, MBC-Widow, SAH-General, SAH-Female and SAH-Widow — despite those candidates having secured raw marks in the negative range, later converted through normalisation to marks that were virtually negligible. For all remaining categories, the respondents were permitted to proceed with the recruitment and appointment process.

The petitioners' individual claims for appointment were not granted. The Court directed a fresh merit and select list exercise for the nine affected categories, to be conducted strictly in accordance with law after prescribing reasonable minimum qualifying standards consistent with constitutional requirements and principles of fairness in public employment.

Order

Both S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3098/2026 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4812/2026 were disposed of on 22 May 2026 with the following directions:

1. The select list for the nine named reserved categories, to the extent it includes candidates selected on the basis of raw negative marks converted through normalisation to virtually negligible positive marks, is quashed and set aside as arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. The respondents are directed to undertake a fresh exercise for preparation of the merit and select list for those nine categories after prescribing reasonable minimum qualifying standards.
3. For all other categories, the respondents may proceed to complete the recruitment and appointment process.
4. The State Government is directed to frame appropriate policy or guidelines ensuring prescription of minimum qualifying marks in such recruitments within a period of three months, so that situations of this nature do not recur.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. The original record and Minutes of the 415th Board meeting produced by counsel for the respondent-Board were returned to counsel.