The Rajasthan High Court has sought an explanation from the State government over extremely low cut-off marks in the recruitment process for Class-IV employees. Justice Anand Sharma passed the order on February 18, 2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3098/2026, Vinod Kumar S/o Pyarelal v. State of Rajasthan.
The Court directed the State to clarify why the recruitment process did not prescribe minimum qualifying marks despite candidates securing near-zero or negative scores.
Petition Challenging Rejection Of Candidature
The petitioner, Vinod Kumar S/o Pyarelal, challenged the rejection of his candidature in the Class-IV recruitment process.
According to the petitioner, the cut-off marks for certain reserved categories were as low as 0.0033. However, authorities rejected his candidature because he secured negative marks (below zero). He argued that the recruitment process did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks. Therefore, the rejection was arbitrary.
Advocates Harendar Neel, Amogh Gupta, and Rohan Gupta represented the petitioner.
Additional Advocate General Kapil Prakash Mathur, along with Advocate Sandeep Maheshwari, appeared for the State of Rajasthan.
Court Raises Concern Over Recruitment Standards
Justice Anand Sharma expressed concern about the unusually low cut-off marks.
The Court described the situation as “surprising” and questioned how recruitment could proceed without minimum standards. It observed that the State, as the appointing authority, must maintain basic standards in public employment.
The Court also noted that selected candidates must possess the ability to perform basic duties attached to Class-IV posts.
Justice Sharma remarked that a candidate who secures near-zero or negative marks cannot reasonably be considered suitable for public employment.
Court Questions Examination Process
The Court further observed that the circumstances raised two possible concerns.
First, the examination may have been unnecessarily difficult for entry-level posts. Second, the authorities may have failed to maintain proper standards while fixing cut-off marks.
The Court stated that both possibilities were unacceptable in a public recruitment process. It also noted that the State had not provided any proper explanation for the absence of minimum qualifying marks.
Court Directs Affidavit From Principal Secretary
The Court directed Additional Advocate General Kapil Prakash Mathur to file an affidavit from the Principal Secretary of the concerned department.
The affidavit must explain:
- Why the recruitment process did not prescribe minimum qualifying marks
- The reasons for fixing such extremely low cut-off marks
- The steps proposed to address the issue
The Court also warned that it may take the matter seriously if the State fails to provide a satisfactory explanation. In such a situation, the Court may draw adverse inferences and pass strict orders.
The matter has been listed for further consideration on March 9, 2026 for necessary compliance.
