The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that revising marks in a competitive selection process based on corrected documentation submitted by the candidate does not constitute a change in selection rules or a violation of natural justice. This ruling reinforces the principle that administrative bodies may correct factual errors in evaluation when the candidate themselves provides updated information.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Ankit Soni, applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Orthopedics) in response to an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) on 27.11.2021 for 29 vacancies. The minimum qualification prescribed was MS Orthopedics or DNB in Orthopedics. The advertisement stated that selection would be based on interviews, but a screening test would be conducted if the number of applications exceeded a manageable level.
Key Facts
- The petitioner held a DNB in Orthopedics and cleared the screening test conducted by RPSC on 18.11.2024.
- He was issued Roll No. 103075 and called for an interview on 23.12.2025.
- The interview call letter dated 18.12.2025 explicitly required candidates to produce original documents including "MD/MS/DNB degree / provisional certificate and attempt certificate" for verification and for the purpose of awarding marks under academic achievements.
- At the time of interview on 23.12.2025, the petitioner did not produce the DNB attempt certificate, claiming it was not available from his institution.
- The interview board, in good faith, allowed him to proceed and awarded him 20 out of 20 marks under academic achievements based on his oral representation that he had made two attempts to clear DNB.
- The petitioner submitted the DNB attempt certificate on 03.04.2026, revealing he had made four attempts, not two.
- Based on the RPSC’s internal marking criteria, four attempts warranted zero marks under the academic component.
- The RPSC revised the petitioner’s academic marks from 20 to 0, reducing his total interview score from 68.82 to 68.58.
- The revised merit list dated 13.04.2026 removed him from the list of candidates eligible for appointment.
- The petitioner had been provisionally ranked 12th in the original merit list dated 30.12.2025.
Procedural History
- 27.11.2021: RPSC issued advertisement for 29 posts of Assistant Professor (Orthopedics).
- 18.11.2024: Screening test results published; petitioner provisionally eligible.
- 05.12.2024: Press notice issued directing document submission by 13.12.2024.
- 18.12.2025: Interview call letter issued specifying required documents including DNB attempt certificate.
- 23.12.2025: Petitioner appeared for interview without DNB attempt certificate; awarded 20/20 academic marks based on oral claim of two attempts.
- 30.12.2025: Final merit list published with petitioner at serial number 12, marked as provisional pending document verification.
- 01.04.2026: Interview marks published showing 68.82 total.
- 03.04.2026: Petitioner submitted DNB attempt certificate revealing four attempts.
- 13.04.2026: RPSC revised merit list, reduced academic marks to 0, total score to 68.58, and excluded petitioner from appointment list.
- 08.04.2026: Impugned communication issued to petitioner informing him of exclusion.
- 21.05.2026: Judgment delivered by Rajasthan High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned letter dated 08.04.2026, direction for his appointment based on his original merit position (No. 12), and disclosure of reasons for exclusion.
The Legal Issue
Can a recruiting authority revise marks awarded during an interview based on corrected documentation submitted by the candidate after the interview, without providing prior notice or opportunity of hearing, without violating the principles of natural justice or altering the selection criteria midway?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the RPSC altered the selection criteria by introducing undisclosed sub-categories (screening, academics, interview) and bifurcating the 100-mark interview into components without prior disclosure. It was contended that reducing marks after the interview without notice violated the principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib and Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Rajasthan to argue that interview weightage must be capped and selection must be transparent. It was further argued that the revision of marks amounted to changing the rules of the game after the process had commenced.
For the Respondent
The RPSC’s counsel submitted that the interview call letter clearly specified the requirement of the DNB attempt certificate for academic marks. The petitioner’s initial award of 20 marks was based on his own misrepresentation. The revision was not a reassessment but a correction of a factual error upon receipt of authentic documentation. The internal categorization of marks was a legitimate administrative tool to ensure uniformity and fairness across multiple interview panels. No new rule was introduced; only existing criteria were correctly applied.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the revision and its procedural context. It emphasized that the interview call letter of 18.12.2025 explicitly required the DNB attempt certificate for academic marks, placing the petitioner on clear notice. The Court held that the petitioner could not claim ignorance of the requirement.
"The revision in marks was not on account of any fresh assessment or reassessment of the petitioner's performance by the Interview Board, but was merely a consequence of correction necessitated upon production of the DNB attempt certificate by the petitioner himself."
The Court distinguished between an adverse adjudicatory action requiring notice and a mere correction of a factual error based on documents provided by the candidate. It held that the initial award of 20 marks was provisional and contingent upon accurate documentation, which was later found to be incorrect.
The Court further held that internal categorization of marks into screening (40%), academics (20%), and interview (40%) was a legitimate administrative practice to ensure uniformity and prevent arbitrariness across multiple panels. Such categorization, once disclosed in the call letter, does not constitute a change in the selection rules.
"Evaluating and awarding marks to all candidates in a competitive examination on the basis of categories or sub-categories or sub-heads avoid discrepancy in award of marks by different interview panels... Such internal methodology for assessment cannot be construed as a change in the rules of the game after commencement of the selection process."
The judgments cited by the petitioner were held to be inapplicable as they dealt with the ceiling on interview weightage, not correction of academic marks based on document verification. The Court also noted that the relied-upon Dr. Rachita Mathur judgment had already been stayed by a Division Bench.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the RPSC’s revision of the petitioner’s academic marks from 20 to 0, resulting in a reduction of his total score from 68.82 to 68.58, and confirmed his exclusion from the final merit list dated 13.04.2026. No appointment order was directed. The stay application and all pending applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Correction of Factual Errors Is Permissible Without Notice
- Practitioners must advise clients that initial provisional marks based on oral representations are subject to revision upon submission of authentic documents.
- A candidate cannot claim violation of natural justice when a mark reduction stems from their own failure to disclose accurate information.
- Administrative bodies may correct errors in evaluation if the revised data is provided by the candidate and aligns with pre-disclosed criteria.
Internal Marking Criteria Need Not Be in Advertisement
- Recruitment authorities may internally divide interview weightage into sub-components (e.g., academics, communication, experience) without publishing the bifurcation in the advertisement.
- As long as the call letter clearly states the documents required for each component, the methodology is legally valid.
- Transparency is satisfied if the candidate is informed of the documents needed to claim marks, not the exact weightage formula.
Procedural Fairness Is Context-Specific
- Natural justice does not require notice for corrections based on the candidate’s own submission of new facts.
- The burden lies on the candidate to provide complete and accurate documentation at the time of interview.
- Delayed submission of documents does not entitle a candidate to retain provisional benefits if the corrected data disqualifies them under pre-existing rules.
