Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Driver Recruitment Between Two Equally Scoring Candidates: "Written test scores were identical, and the differentiator was the skill test, where the selected candidate secured a better grade".

Share this article

Court’s Decision

The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, dismissed challenging the appointment of a selected candidate for the post of driver. The Court held that no illegality or jurisdictional error had been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. It ruled:

“We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.”

The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Facts

An advertisement dated 01.02.2016 was issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Korea, for recruitment to several posts, including that of a driver. The eligibility criteria for the post of driver included a pass in the 8th standard and possession of a valid four-wheeler driving license.

The appellant applied for the post and claimed to possess higher and specialized qualifications including High School, Higher Secondary Certificate, NCVT certification, Central Tool Room Training Centre certification, experience certificates, and others.

Both the appellant and the selected candidate participated in the written examination and skill test. In the written exam, both candidates scored 28 out of 50. In the skill test, the appellant was graded “A” (Pass) while the selected candidate was awarded “AA” (Super Pass, Very Good).

A merit list and a skill test result list were published. Based on the combined performance, the selected candidate was placed in the final select list, while the appellant was put on the waiting list. An appointment order was issued on 28.05.2016.

The appellant raised preliminary objections regarding the recruitment process, particularly against the marking system used in the skill test, and later sought information under the Right to Information Act, alleging discrepancies in the marking and evaluation process. Dissatisfied with the responses and the rejection of his objections, he filed a writ petition which was dismissed. He then preferred the present writ appeal.

Issues

Whether the allotment of 25 marks in the skill test was contrary to the recruitment advertisement and vitiated the selection process?
Whether the appellant’s superior educational and vocational qualifications should have been considered in his favour?
Whether the selection committee’s decision suffered from arbitrariness or procedural impropriety warranting judicial interference?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant contended that the recruitment advertisement merely required the conduction of a skill test and did not prescribe any marks to be allotted therein. Thus, the assignment of 25 marks in the skill test, and basing final selection on that, violated the advertised procedure.

He further argued that he possessed higher educational qualifications and vocational experience than the selected candidate, and this should have been taken into consideration during the evaluation.

It was also submitted that the answer sheets obtained under RTI showed signs of correction and manipulation, and that his preliminary objection letter was not considered in the proper spirit. He sought quashing of the appointment order and prayed for his appointment with all consequential benefits.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State opposed the appeal, submitting that the recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement. The minimum eligibility requirement was an 8th standard pass and a valid four-wheeler license—nothing more.

Both the appellant and the selected candidate scored equal marks in the written test. In the skill test, the selected candidate secured a higher grade (AA) than the appellant (A), as per records annexed to the writ petition. The evaluation was done by competent Transport Department officials, and the appointment was made on the basis of better overall merit.

It was emphasized that no extra marks were to be awarded for educational qualifications beyond the prescribed minimum, as per clause 3 of the recruitment rules. The objections raised by the appellant were duly considered and rejected by the selection committee. No illegality or arbitrariness was evident in the process.

Analysis of the Law

The Court examined the clauses of the recruitment advertisement, particularly clause 4, which required candidates to undergo a skill test, and clause 3, which made it clear that no marks would be awarded for qualifications higher than the 8th standard.

The Court found that the skill test was not merely qualifying in nature and that evaluating performance within the test, even by marks or grades, fell within the discretion of the selection committee.

It further held that the committee’s method of grading (such as “Pass” or “Super Pass”) did not contradict the advertisement but rather served the purpose of merit-based evaluation.

Precedent Analysis

While no specific precedents were cited in the judgment, the Court’s reasoning aligns with the settled law that courts should not interfere with recruitment decisions unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, bias, or violation of statutory rules. Discretion exercised by expert selection committees, particularly in skill-based assessments, is rarely interfered with unless perverse.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court noted that:

Both candidates had secured the same marks in the written examination.
The skill test showed a clear difference in grading, with the selected candidate being rated “Super Pass” and “Very Good”.
Clause 3 of the advertisement clearly stated that no additional marks were to be awarded for higher educational qualifications.
The selection committee had the authority to evaluate candidates in the skill test as it deemed fit, provided transparency and fairness were maintained.
The objections raised by the appellant had been examined and rejected by the committee in a reasoned manner.

The Court found no irregularity in the evaluation process, noting:

“Selection committee has power to decide the total marks out of which a candidate should be given or allotted marks in the skill test.”

It further observed that the appellant failed to implead another similarly placed candidate (who had obtained equal marks) and that this too weakened his case.

Conclusion

The High Court affirmed the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal, holding that the entire selection process was conducted lawfully and in accordance with the advertisement. No interference was warranted:

“The present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.”

Implications

This ruling reinforces judicial restraint in service selection matters, particularly where skill assessment and merit rankings are based on expert evaluation. It clarifies that:

Advertisement clauses must be interpreted in light of administrative discretion, especially where qualifications and testing methods are concerned.
Higher educational qualifications beyond the prescribed minimum do not entitle candidates to preferential treatment unless the advertisement expressly provides for such consideration.
Courts will not upset recruitment decisions merely on subjective perceptions of merit unless arbitrariness, illegality, or bias is proven.

Click Here to Download the Judgment Download

Also Read: Bombay High Court: “Change in Testing Method Cannot Alter Nature of Goods”

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Driver Recruitment Between Two Equally Scoring Candidates: “Written test scores were identical, and the differentiator was the skill test, where the selected candidate secured a better grade”.