Rajasthan High Court Criticizes Government Over Peon Recruitment with Zero Marks Cut-Off
The Rajasthan High Court on Monday expressed strong dissatisfaction with an affidavit filed by the administrative reforms department in a case concerning the Class IV (peon) recruitment for 2024. The bench, led by Justice Anand Sharma, observed that government departments should not shift responsibility onto each other when explanations are sought by the court.
Court's Displeasure Over Departmental Response
During the hearing of a petition filed by Vinod Kumar, the court noted that the administrative reforms department, in its reply, stated that fixing a minimum cut-off or qualifying marks was not its responsibility. The department argued that its role was limited to allotting departments to successful candidates, while matters related to recruitment rules and determination of minimum marks fell under the purview of the Department of Personnel (DoP) and the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board.
The court, however, expressed displeasure over this response, remarking that government departments cannot keep passing responsibility from one to another. This criticism came as the court sought clarity on how candidates scoring as low as 0 marks could be considered eligible for appointment to government posts.
Background of the Recruitment Issue
The case arose from the recruitment process for peon positions, where candidates scoring 0 marks were also considered eligible. Earlier, the court had directed the principal secretary of the administrative reforms department to file an affidavit explaining how such a situation occurred, particularly noting that the cut-off in the ex-serviceman (OBC) category went as low as 0.0033, effectively 0 marks.
The bench questioned the logic of treating candidates with 0 or even negative marks as suitable for government service, emphasizing that even for a Class IV post, a basic standard is necessary. Justice Sharma highlighted that such practices undermine the integrity of government recruitment and set a poor precedent for public service standards.
Arguments from the Petitioner's Side
Representing the petitioner, counsel Harendra Neel argued that since the recruitment advertisement and service rules did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks, candidates who secured negative marks should also be considered if vacancies remain unfilled. This argument was presented in the context of ensuring that all positions are filled, but the court appeared skeptical, focusing instead on the need for maintaining basic eligibility criteria.
The court's observations underscore a broader concern about accountability and transparency in government recruitment processes. By calling out the shifting of responsibilities, the bench aims to ensure that departments take ownership of their roles in upholding fair and merit-based hiring practices.
Implications for Future Recruitment
This case highlights potential flaws in the recruitment framework for lower-level government positions in Rajasthan. The court's insistence on explanations and its criticism of departmental buck-passing may lead to reforms in how cut-offs and qualifying marks are determined for future recruitments.
As the hearing continues, stakeholders are watching closely to see how the government responds to the court's directives. The outcome could set important precedents for ensuring that even entry-level government jobs maintain a minimum standard of competence and fairness.
