Supreme Court rules against arbitrary cut-offs in recruitment despite vacant posts.

The Supreme Court has held that where a statute or rule provides a specific and exhaustive mechanism for shortlisting candidates, the selection authority cannot introduce additional eligibility thresholds, such as qualifying or cut-off marks, which are not prescribed by the rules.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih held that prescribing cut-off marks, particularly when it results in the exclusion of candidates despite the availability of vacancies, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power and vitiates the selection process.

Cut-off marks not prescribed by the recruitment rules

Court said the imposition of an additional eligibility threshold of cut-off marks, not provided for in the rules, would be arbitrary and contrary to the prescribed procedure.

The Bench was dealing with a plea filed by Arvind Kumar and others, who had challenged the recruitment process for instructors in Uttar Pradesh. The appellants had participated in the selection process without objecting to the recruitment rules. However, Court held that such participation would not prevent a challenge where arbitrariness or illegality in the selection process is writ large.

The appellants were aggrieved by the dilution of the CITS (Craft Instructor Training Scheme) certificate requirement, as non-CITS candidates were allowed to participate in the recruitment process initiated through advertisements issued in 2014 and 2015 by the Uttar Pradesh government.

They claimed that the state government had erroneously made the CITS certificate a desirable qualification, contrary to the executive directions issued by the Central Government on July 24, 1996, which required the CITS certificate to be a mandatory essential qualification.

The Allahabad High Court, by its common judgment and order dated January 4, 2023, dismissed their petitions.

The Supreme Court examined whether the 2014 Rules issued by the Uttar Pradesh government were bad for contravention of the Central Government's executive directions of July 24, 1996.

The Bench noted that the 2014 Rules have since been superseded by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Training Institute (Instructor and Foreman Instructor) Service Rules, 2021, under which the National Craft Instructor Certificate has been made an essential qualification.

Can a candidate challenge the selection process after participating in it?

Ordinarily, no. Court noted that a candidate who participates in a selection process without objection cannot ordinarily challenge the process subsequently.

The state had argued that the appellants had applied under the advertisements with full awareness that acquisition of a CITS certificate was only a desirable qualification and were therefore estopped from challenging the process.

The Supreme Court found this objection to be well founded, fair and tenable.

However, the Bench clarified that this principle would not apply where illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process is writ large.

"However, though a candidate for a post cannot ordinarily challenge the process of selection where he has participated without objection, law is well-settled that he can do so in a situation where arbitrariness/illegality in the selection process is writ large," the Bench said.

Court added that by agreeing to participate in the selection process, a candidate cannot be expected to anticipate that an illegality in the process would later be used to rule out his candidature. Nor can the candidate be said to have accepted the illegality merely by participating in the process.

"If indeed illegality in the process is demonstrated to have vitiated the process, notwithstanding his participation, the candidate could be granted relief as the situation would warrant and permit," the Bench said.

Why did the Supreme Court find the cut-off marks arbitrary?

Court found that the selection committee had introduced qualifying or cut-off marks even though the 2014 Rules did not provide for such a requirement.

In the 2014 recruitment, 2,498 vacancies had been advertised, but offer letters could be issued to only around 2,200 candidates. A similar situation arose in 2015, when the number of offer letters issued was less than the number of vacancies advertised.

Therefore, instead of there being an excess of eligible candidates, a substantial number of advertised vacancies remained unfilled. Court noted that this consequence was attributable solely to the prescription of qualifying or cut-off marks by the Selection Committee/SoUP, a criterion which found no mention in the 2014 Rules.

The Bench said that once the rule-making authority had consciously provided only one mode of shortlisting, namely limiting the candidates called for interview to four times the number of vacancies where applications were received in large numbers, it was not open to the Selection Committee/SoUP to impose an additional eligibility threshold.

"The fixation of qualifying or cut-off marks resulted in ouster of a substantial number of candidates including the appellants and, thereby, vacancies remained unfilled despite the availability of candidates otherwise eligible under the Rules. Such fixation has to be characterised as arbitrary and contrary to the recruitment procedure prescribed by the 2014 Rules as well as the overall object behind them," the Bench said.

Court held that the failure of the Selection Committee to follow the 2014 Rules, particularly by excluding the appellants through arbitrary qualifying or cut-off marks in the guise of screening eligible candidates despite the number of advertised vacancies exceeding the candidates found prima facie eligible, could not be validated merely because the appellants had participated in the selection process.

The appellants could not have known, before the declaration or publication of the results, that the Selection Committee would not follow the prescribed rules for selection, Court said.

"The rules of the game, mid-way, could not have been changed by the Selection Committee to the detriment of a number of candidates. Since there has been arbitrariness in State action, which has vitiated the process of selection including nonselection of the appellants, this is sufficient for us to consider the question of grant relief to the appellants, without going into the validity of the 2014 Rules," the Bench said.

What relief did the Supreme Court grant to the candidates?

As per the written arguments filed by the State on May 29, 2026, 5,507 instructors were presently in position against 7,768 sanctioned posts.

The Bench noted that the appellants had proved that they were subjected to arbitrary treatment and that sufficient vacancies were available where they could be accommodated even now. It held that denying them relief merely because they had aged would cause injustice.

Court directed that the appellants and the impleaded candidates be considered for recruitment against posts that are presently vacant in the relevant discipline or trade.

If the number of eligible appellants exceeds the number of available vacancies, Court ordered that supernumerary posts be created for them in the relevant discipline or trade.

Court further directed that appointments be offered within four months, with prospective effect, subject to further scrutiny to establish that the appellants possessed the requisite qualifications on the dates they had applied for selection and upon verification of their antecedents.

It also directed that a reasoned order be passed by the appointing authority if the appointment of any appellant is declined, and that such an order be communicated to the concerned appellant without delay.

Once appointed, the appellants will be entitled to all benefits, except back wages, seniority and promotion, while in service. They will also be eligible for pension if, after appointment, they qualify for pension under the prevalent rules.

If gratuity is paid at the time of retirement on superannuation, the appellants will also be entitled to the same, subject to being qualified for it, the Bench ordered. 

Case Title: Arvind Kumar & Ors Vs State of UP & Ors

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: July 24, 2026

Tags: