Sub-Inspector Exam: Gujarat High Court Rejects Pleas By Unsuccessful Aspirants Challenging Mandate Of Scoring 40% Marks In Each Subject

The Gujarat High Court rejected a plea moved by certain candidates challenging the result of Sub-Inspector exam wherein the selection board required candidates to secure 40% marks in each of the four subjects. 

The court held that the purpose of selection would stand defeated if instead of ascertaining knowledge of candidate in each subject their overall assessment is considered. 

The petitioners had applied for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector /Instructor, Grade III, under the Director, General Home Guards, Department of Home conducted by the Gujarat Subordinate Selection Board pursuant to a 2021 advertisement. The petitioners were declared unsuccessful and argued that while they had secured more than 40% marks in aggregate, on an erroneous interpretation of the Recruitment Rules they were declared unsuccessful, since they did not obtain 40% marks in each of the subjects. 

The petitioners also questioned the process adopted by the Selection Board of requiring 40% marks as the passing standard for each subjects after the selection process had commenced. 

The State argued that accepting the petitioners' contention would result in an incongruous position as a candidate, who may not have secured the minimum qualifying marks in one subject but has secured the minimum aggregate marks, would be entitled for selection. It was stated that the intent of the selection body is to ensure that a candidate, who has secured minimum passing marks in all subjects, would be considered for selection, adding that the term 'aggregate' was not mentioned in the rules. 

Justice Nikhil Kariel  in his order said:

"To this Court, it would appear that purpose of ascertaining the knowledge, understanding and capability of a candidate in each subject, cannot be confused with the overall assessment of the candidate, the purpose of the Rules being to ensure that the best talent is available and the purpose of the selection being to ascertain the knowledge and capability of the candidate in each subject separately, the basic purpose of selection through the Recruitment Rules, would stand defeated, if the arguments of the petitioners were accepted i.e. instead of ascertaining the knowledge and capability of a candidate in each subject, the overall understanding of the candidate would be taken into consideration". 

The court said that even if rules are purposively interpreted, the intent would be to judge the knowledge, capability and understanding of the candidates subject-wise and not in aggregate.

It also said that the Rule envisages that the selection board is empowered to fix the minimum qualifying standard required for passing of the main examination and the minimum qualifying standard shall in no case be below 40% marks to be obtained in each subject.

"The interpretation being on the basis that the Rule in the first part states about the power of the board to fix the minimum qualifying standard in the 'main examination'. In the second and the more important part in the present context, the Rules use the phrase 'written test'. The difference of phraseology used in very selfsame Rule, is too obvious and stark to ignore,"it added. 

Thus if both literal and purposive interpretation is applied, the court said, the Rules clearly envisage requirement of scoring minimum passing marks in each examination

"As a natural corollary, a candidate, who has to score more than the minimum qualifying marks in aggregate, but has not scored the minimum qualifying marks in one or more subject, would not be entitled to be considered for selection," it added. 

It said that the Rules having statutory force are binding on recruiting body in terms of procedure and eligibility and where Rules are non-existent / silent, then administrative instructions can fill up the gap.

It thus dismissed the plea.

Case title: KUSH RASHMIKANTBHAI DAVE & ORS. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 151