The Rajasthan High Court has quashed part of the state’s Class-IV recruitment selection process after finding that candidates with marks “virtually equal to zero” were selected for public employment.
In a strongly worded judgment, Justice Anand Sharma said the State cannot abandon minimum standards of suitability even for entry-level government jobs.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by Vinod Kumar and another candidate who participated in the Rajasthan Class-IV Employees Recruitment Examination-2024 conducted by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board. The recruitment drive covered more than 52,000 vacancies.
Both petitioners challenged the results after they were denied selection due to negative normalized marks. They argued that neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement prescribed any minimum qualifying marks for selection.
The petitioners also questioned the normalization process adopted by the Board, claiming it artificially altered scores across shifts. According to them, several candidates with extremely low marks were selected while their candidature was rejected.
The State and the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board defended the recruitment process, stating that normalization was necessary because the examination was conducted in six shifts. The Board further relied on its 2017 instructions which stated that candidates securing zero or negative marks should not ordinarily be selected.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the Court examined the selection records and found that more than 1,200 candidates who initially secured negative raw marks were ultimately pushed into the positive range after normalization.
The judgment recorded that cut-off marks in several reserved categories fell as low as 0.0035 marks out of 200.
Justice Sharma observed, “Public employment is not a matter of charity or distribution of largesse.” The Court said even Class-IV employees are expected to perform official duties requiring basic competence and discipline.
The bench further noted that normalization cannot be used to “create artificial merit where none exists.”
Referring to Article 335 of the Constitution, the Court emphasized that efficiency in administration must remain a core consideration in public recruitment. It also relied on Supreme Court judgments including M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, Dr. Sadhna Devi v. State of U.P., and S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India.
The Court said the State failed to provide any rational explanation for not fixing minimum qualifying marks despite extremely low cut-offs.
Court’s Decision
Allowing the petitions partly, the High Court held that the selection of candidates in several reserved categories despite securing negative raw marks and negligible normalized marks was “arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
The Court quashed the select list for categories including General Ex-Serviceman, SC-Widow, ST-Widow, OBC-Widow and certain other reserved categories. It directed the authorities to prepare a fresh merit list after prescribing reasonable minimum qualifying standards.
The State Government was also directed to frame appropriate policy guidelines within three months to ensure minimum qualifying marks are prescribed in such recruitments in future.
Case Details
Case Title: Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. connected with Anju v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3098/2026 connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4812/2026
Judge: Justice Anand Sharma
Decision Date: 22 May 2026
