Statutory recruitment rules cannot be relaxed by adding moderation marks or new eligibility thresholds.

In recruitment governed by statutory service rules, mandatory qualifying conditions cannot be relaxed by the examining or selecting authority unless the rules themselves confer that power or are validly amended by the competent rule-maker. A High Court could not add moderation marks to bring in candidates who had failed to secure the prescribed viva voce minimum, because that altered the competitive field and the qualifying standard fixed by the rules. The Selection Committee also could not impose an additional aggregate benchmark of 600 marks, since that created a new disqualification not found in the governing rules. The select list must be prepared strictly in accordance with the prescribed merit criteria.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had power to add moderation marks so as to include candidates who had not secured the minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce test; (ii) Whether the Selection Committee or the High Court could exclude from the final select list candidates who had appeared at the viva voce test on the ground that they had not secured 600 marks in the aggregate.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had power to add moderation marks so as to include candidates who had not secured the minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce test.

Analysis: Recruitment to the Delhi Judicial Service was governed by the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, and Clause (6) of the Appendix fixed mandatory qualifying marks for viva voce. The moderation of two marks in each paper was not directed to any defect in the question papers or valuation, but was adopted to enlarge the zone of consideration. That exercise effectively altered the prescribed qualifying standard and changed the competitive field by bringing in candidates who were otherwise ineligible under the Rules. Such a change could be made only by the rule-making authority in the manner contemplated by Article 234 of the Constitution of India, not by the High Court in the course of conducting the examination.

Conclusion: The High Court had no power to add moderation marks for the purpose of relaxing the qualifying standard, and the list prepared on that basis was illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the Selection Committee or the High Court could exclude from the final select list candidates who had appeared at the viva voce test on the ground that they had not secured 600 marks in the aggregate.

Analysis: Rules 17 and 18 required the Selection Committee to call candidates for viva voce only in accordance with the Appendix and then prepare the list in order of merit. The Rules did not confer power to prescribe an additional minimum aggregate of 600 marks. Imposing such a threshold amounted to creating a new disqualification beyond the Rules. The final list had to be prepared on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained in the written examination and viva voce, without importing an extra criterion not found in the Rules.

Conclusion: The Selection Committee had no authority to exclude candidates for want of 600 marks in the aggregate, and the exclusion was unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The impugned select list could not stand because it was prepared by applying an unauthorized moderation and by adding an extra eligibility condition not contained in the governing recruitment rules.

Ratio Decidendi: In recruitment governed by statutory rules, neither the examining authority nor the /selecting authority can relax or alter mandatory qualifying conditions or add new eligibility criteria unless the rules themselves confer such power or are validly amended by the competent rule-making authority.

---