Ms Tongam Nake vs The State Of AP & Ors

Heard Mr. D. Soki, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Standing Counsel, APSSB for the respondents.

By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners seek consideration of their candidature for appointment to the posts of Constable (GD), Civil Police, pursuant to advertisement dated 21.01.2020 issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board (APSSB), by extending to them the benefit of age relaxation available to APST candidates under the A.P. Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age-limit for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule of 2014) and the benefit of relaxation in minimum qualifying marks contemplated under the Minimum Qualifying Marks for Recruitment to Group A, B and C Posts and Common Examination Scheme (for Group-C Posts) Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule of 2023).

Since all these writ petitions arise out of the same recruitment process initiated by the APSSB pursuant to advertisement dated 21.01.2020 and involve common questions relating to the entitlement of APST candidates to age relaxation and relaxation in minimum qualifying marks, the same are taken up together and is disposed of by this common judgment and order.

The petitioner in WP(C) No. 448/2025 had applied for the post of Constable (GD), Civil Police (Male) under Post Code 65/20, against 225 advertised posts, whereas the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 475/2025 and WP(C) Nos. 476/2025 had applied for the post of Constable (GD), Civil Police (Female) under Post Code 66/20, against 172 advertised posts. All the petitioners belong to the Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) and had participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement.

The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions are that the advertisement was issued on a district-wise reservation basis. No vacancy was advertised for Upper Siang district, from where the petitioner in WP(C) No. 448/2025 belongs, or for West Siang and East Siang districts, from where the petitioners in WP(C) No. 476/2025 belong. On making enquiries with the APSSB, the petitioners were informed that candidates belonging to districts where no posts had been advertised could apply against the general pool while availing the relaxations available to APST candidates. Acting upon such clarification, the concerned petitioners applied against the general pool and participated in the recruitment process.

The petitioners were thereafter treated as eligible throughout the recruitment process. Their particulars were verified pursuant to notices dated 24.11.2021 and 18.10.2022. They were permitted to download their admit cards and appear in the Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test (PST/PET), in which they were found eligible. They were thereafter permitted to appear in the written examination held on 13.07.2025. At no stage during the recruitment process was their eligibility questioned on the ground on which their candidature was subsequently sought to be rejected.

Under the original advertisement, candidates appearing in the written examination were required to secure 33% marks in each paper and 45% marks in aggregate. Subsequently, by notice dated 15.06.2022, the requirement of securing 45% marks in aggregate was withdrawn for all examinations. The petitioners state that the said notice was not widely publicised and they continued to proceed on the basis of the original requirement. Negative marking was also prescribed in the written examination.

The post of Constable prescribed Class-X as the educational qualification and the written examination comprised General English, Elementary Mathematics and General Knowledge. The petitioners contend that several questions in the examination were of a standard substantially higher than the qualification prescribed for the post. It is stated that, certain questions were of CSAT level, while some others related to subjects and topics ordinarily studied at graduate and post-graduate levels, including Sociology.

The result of the examination also reflected a very low rate of recommendation against the number of vacancies advertised. Out of 225 vacancies for Constable (GD) Male, only 9 candidates were recommended, of whom only one was an APST candidate. Against 172 vacancies for Constable (GD) Female, only 2 candidates were recommended. Similarly, against 29 vacancies for Constable (IRBn) (Band/Bugler), only 7 candidates were recommended. Thus, against a total of 426 Constable posts, only 18 candidates were recommended, of whom only 10 were APST candidates. Out of the two APST candidates selected against the female post, one was selected against the unreserved category.

After declaration of the result, the petitioners obtained their marksheets, OMR sheets and answer keys. In WP(C) No. 475/2025, the petitioner had fallen short of the prescribed 33% marks by 4.5 marks in General English and 3.5 marks in Elementary Mathematics. In WP(C) No. 476/2025, petitioner No. 1 had fallen short by 1.5 marks in General Knowledge and petitioner No. 2 by 0.5 marks in General English. The shortfall in the qualifying marks was, therefore, marginal.

The Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, had framed the Minimum Qualifying Marks for Recruitment to Group A, B and C Posts and Common Examination Scheme (for Group-C Posts) Rules, 2023. Under the said Rules, the APSSB may recommend candidates belonging to APST and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities by applying relaxed standards where, in its opinion, sufficient number of candidates belonging to such categories are not likely to qualify on the basis of the general standard fixed by the APSSB. The Rules were subsequently amended in the year 2024 to include Ex-Servicemen within the scope of such relaxation.

In the recruitment in question, having regard to the large number of vacancies and the exceptionally low number of candidates recommended, the petitioners sought consideration of their candidature under the aforesaid statutory provision. It is also stated that the APSSB had considered the question of relaxation before declaration of the provisional result and had granted relaxation to candidates belonging to the Ex-Servicemen category. The petitioners, however, were not extended similar consideration as APST candidates.

In WP(C) No. 448/2025, the petitioner, belonging to the Adi Tribe, had applied against the general pool as no vacancy was advertised for Upper Siang district. At the time of the advertisement, he was above the normal age prescribed for the post. However, upon taking into account the five-year age relaxation available to APST candidates, he fell within the permissible age limit and was accordingly permitted to participate in the recruitment process. He was thereafter treated as eligible throughout the selection process and was permitted to appear in the PST/PET as well as the written examination.

After declaration of the result, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 448/2025 approached the APSSB for consideration of his candidature. He was informed that since he had applied against the general pool, he could not avail the age relaxation available to APST candidates and was consequently over-age. The petitioner also claims to have secured marks higher than the last selected candidate for the post of Constable (GD) Male and submitted a representation dated 25.08.2025 seeking consideration of his candidature. The said representation was rejected by the APSSB by communication dated 27.08.2025 on the ground that he had applied in the unreserved category and was therefore not entitled to age relaxation.

The petitioners in WP(C) No. 476/2025 also belong to districts for which no vacancies were advertised and had applied against the general pool after obtaining clarification from the APSSB. They were subsequently denied the benefit of age relaxation on the ground that they had applied against the general pool.

The petitioners had approached the APSSB seeking consideration of their candidature by extending the benefit of age relaxation under the Rules of 2014, wherever applicable, and by applying the relaxed qualifying standards contemplated under the Rules of 2023. Despite having been permitted to participate in the recruitment process, including verification of documents, PST/PET and the written examination, their candidature was not considered on the basis of the aforesaid statutory relaxations.

The petitioners contend that the general pool cannot be treated as a category reserved exclusively for non-APST candidates and that their having applied against the general pool, in the circumstances of the present recruitment, could not have the effect of depriving them of the statutory benefits available to APST candidates. They also contend that the unusually low number of candidates recommended against the large number of vacancies warranted consideration of the relaxed qualifying standards contemplated under the Rules of 2023.

Hence, the present writ petitions have been filed seeking consideration of the petitioners' candidature by extending the benefit of age relaxation under the Rules of 2014, wherever applicable, and by applying the relaxed qualifying standards under the Rules of 2023 and, upon their being found qualified, for consideration of their candidature for recommendation and appointment to the respective posts of Constable (GD).

Mr. D. Soki, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have been subjected to an unreasonable and inconsistent application of the recruitment conditions despite having been permitted to participate in the selection process at every stage. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioners, being APST candidates, cannot be deprived of the statutory relaxations available to them merely because, owing to the district-wise manner in which the vacancies were advertised, they were required to apply against the general pool.

Learned Counsel submits that the general pool cannot be equated with a category reserved exclusively for non-APST candidates. It is submitted that the petitioners were permitted by the APSSB to apply against the general pool and were thereafter treated as eligible throughout the recruitment process. Having permitted them to participate in the PST/PET and written examination without raising any objection regarding their age or eligibility, the respondents could not subsequently deny them the statutory benefits available to APST candidates.

Learned Counsel submits that the five-year age relaxation under the Rules of 2014 is a statutory benefit available to APST candidates in direct recruitment and is not dependent upon the candidate applying against a reserved vacancy. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the petitioners' applications against the general pool could not operate to extinguish their statutory entitlement to age relaxation.

Learned Counsel submits that the Rules of 2023 specifically empower the APSSB to apply relaxed qualifying standards in favour of APST candidates where sufficient candidates are not likely to qualify on the general standard. The present recruitment, according to learned Counsel, presents a clear case for consideration of such relaxation, having regard to the disproportionately small number of candidates recommended against the large number of advertised vacancies. It is submitted that the APSSB was therefore required to consider whether the APST candidates could be recommended by applying the relaxed standard contemplated under the Rules.

Learned Counsel submits that the APSSB had itself considered relaxation before declaration of the provisional result and had extended such benefit to Ex-Servicemen candidates. It is contended that there was no justification for failing to consider APST candidates under the same statutory scheme, particularly when the Rules specifically provide for relaxation in their favour. Learned Counsel submits that the failure to consider the petitioners' candidature in the light of the 2023 Rules has resulted in denial of equal opportunity and defeats the very object of the statutory provision.

In support of his submissions, learned Counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 119, wherein it was held that concessions such as relaxation in age and fee merely enable reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and do not disturb the level playing field once the candidates enter the stage of open competition. Learned Counsel submits that such eligibility-related relaxation cannot, by itself, be treated as a benefit in the ultimate selection where the merit of all candidates is assessed on uniform criteria.

Learned Counsel also places reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaya & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 457, wherein, after considering Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), the Court held that relaxation at the eligibility stage merely enables a candidate to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect inter se merit where the ultimate selection is based on uniform criteria. It was further held that migration of a reserved category candidate depends upon the applicable Recruitment Rules or employment notification and is permissible where there is no prohibition against such migration. Learned Counsel submits that, in the present case, there is no such prohibition and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be excluded from consideration merely on the ground that they have availed statutory relaxation available to APST candidates.

Per contra, Mr. S. Tapin, learned Standing Counsel, APSSB, appearing for the respondents, submits that there is no bar against an APST candidate competing for an Un-Reserved vacancy. The distinction, however, lies in the standard on which such candidate enters the competition. A candidate seeking consideration against an Un-Reserved vacancy has to satisfy the eligibility conditions applicable to that vacancy and cannot retain a concession which is available only by reason of his belonging to a reserved category. Thus, while an APST candidate may compete against an Un-Reserved vacancy, the benefit of an APST-specific relaxation in age cannot be claimed while seeking consideration against such vacancy.

In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. The said O.M. distinguishes between a reserved category candidate who is selected on the same standard as a general candidate and one who enters the selection process by availing a relaxed standard. Where a candidate has availed relaxation in age, experience, qualification, number of permissible chances, extension of the zone of consideration or any similar concession, such candidate is not to be treated as having been selected on the same standard as a general candidate and is to be counted against the vacancy reserved for the concerned category. The respondents submit that the underlying principle is that an Un-Reserved vacancy must be competed for on the same eligibility standard applicable to candidates belonging to the general category and that a candidate cannot simultaneously rely upon a category-specific relaxation and claim to have competed on the same standard as such candidates.

The respondents have also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 12 SCC 680, where the effect of the aforesaid O.M. was considered in the context of age relaxation. In that case, the Supreme Court examined the claim of a reserved category candidate who had availed age relaxation and thereafter sought appointment against an Un-Reserved vacancy, and held that such claim could not be sustained where the applicable instructions prohibited migration after availing the relaxed standard. Reliance has further been placed upon Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943 and Union of India & Ors. v. G. Kiran & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 22, to contend that the question whether a reserved category candidate can migrate to an Un-Reserved vacancy after availing a category-specific relaxation has to be examined in the light of the applicable recruitment rules, instructions and conditions governing the selection. The respondents submit that these decisions make it clear that there is no unconditional right of migration merely because a reserved category candidate has secured marks higher than a candidate selected against an Un-Reserved vacancy.

So far as the petitioner in WP(C) No. 448/2025 is concerned, the respondents point out that his application itself disclosed that he belonged to the APST category and that his domicile district was Upper Siang. His age as on 01.01.2020 was 23 years, 2 months and 14 days, whereas the prescribed age for candidates seeking consideration against the Un-Reserved vacancies was 17 to 21 years. Since no vacancy had been advertised for APST candidates of Upper Siang district, the petitioner sought consideration against the general pool. His candidature, therefore, had to satisfy the age-limit applicable to that pool. The respondents contend that the five-year age concession available to APST candidates under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2014, though available to the category in direct recruitment, cannot be invoked to overcome the age requirement applicable to an Un-Reserved vacancy while simultaneously claiming consideration against that vacancy on the same footing as a general candidate.

The respondents further rely upon the conditions of the advertisement which made the selection provisional. Condition No. 6(iii) specifically reserved the right of the appointing authority to satisfy itself regarding the eligibility and suitability of a candidate before appointment, while Condition No. 8(ii) empowered the Board to reject the candidature of an ineligible candidate at any stage of recruitment. The issuance of an admit card, participation in the PST/PET or appearance in the written examination, therefore, cannot by itself create a right to appointment where the candidate is ultimately found not to satisfy the prescribed eligibility condition. The respondents contend that the later scrutiny of eligibility was contemplated under the terms of the advertisement itself, and that participation at an earlier stage cannot operate to waive or override a mandatory eligibility condition.

On the issue of relaxation of minimum qualifying marks, the respondents contend that the Rules of 2023 do not confer an automatic entitlement upon every APST candidate who fails to attain the notified qualifying marks. Rule 4(a) permits the APSSB to recommend APST and PwD candidates by applying relaxed standards where the Board forms an opinion that sufficient candidates belonging to those categories are not likely to qualify on the general standard in order to fill the vacancies reserved for them. The respondents further submit that the Rule makes relaxation dependent upon the Board forming the requisite opinion and does not mandate relaxation merely because vacancies remain unfilled or a candidate has fallen short of the qualifying marks by a narrow margin.

It is pointed out that the Board had considered the performance of different categories in earlier examinations and, by order dated 06.12.2024, fixed the qualifying standard for Ex-Servicemen at 20% in the Secondary Level Examination. At the same time, the material considered by the Board indicated that APST and PwD candidates had been adequately qualifying at the existing standard of 33%. On that basis, no further relaxation was considered necessary for those categories. The relaxation granted to Ex-Servicemen was thus based upon material specific to that category and cannot, merely because such relaxation was granted, be treated as creating a corresponding entitlement in favour of APST candidates. The respondents submit that the statutory scheme does not require identical treatment of distinct categories where the decision to relax the standard is based upon category-specific material.

The respondents further contend that the comparatively small number of candidates recommended against the advertised vacancies cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for directing relaxation of the qualifying marks. Likewise, the fact that some of the petitioners fell short of the prescribed marks by a narrow margin does not alter the position. The qualifying standard had been fixed and notified before the examination, and the candidates participated in the selection process with knowledge of that standard. The subsequent result cannot, merely because the number of successful candidates was low, be made the basis for retrospectively altering the standard applicable to the examination. The respondents submit that such an alteration after completion of the examination would affect the uniformity of the selection process and would amount to changing the rules of the competition after the candidates had participated on the basis of the notified standard.

The challenge to the standard or difficulty of the question paper is also opposed on the ground that the examination was conducted in accordance with the syllabus and examination scheme applicable to the post. Mere difficulty of some questions, or the petitioners' perception that certain questions were of a level higher than the prescribed educational qualification, cannot by itself justify interference with the examination or reduction of the qualifying marks. It is further submitted that the withdrawal of the requirement of securing 45% marks in aggregate was made pursuant to the Government O.M. dated 10.06.2022 and was notified by the Board on 15.06.2022, well before the written examination.

Learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submits that neither the claim for age relaxation while competing against the Un-Reserved vacancies nor the prayer for relaxation of the minimum qualifying marks is sustainable.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the records placed before the Court.

The recruitment in question was initiated pursuant to Advertisement dated 21.01.2020. The petitioners admittedly belong to the APST category and participated in the selection process pursuant to the said advertisement. They were permitted to undergo the prescribed stages of selection, including document verification, PST/PET and the written examination. However, mere participation in the selection process cannot dispense with the requirement of satisfying the eligibility conditions applicable to the vacancy against which a candidate seeks consideration. The fact that a candidate was permitted to proceed through the earlier stages of selection cannot, by itself, override the eligibility conditions prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules or the conditions of the advertisement.

The question that arises for consideration is whether an APST candidate, who seeks consideration against an Un-Reserved vacancy, can rely upon the age relaxation available to APST candidates and, at the same time, claim treatment as a candidate competing against the Un-Reserved vacancy. The answer cannot depend merely upon the fact that a reserved category candidate is permitted to compete in the general pool. What has to be examined is whether a candidate who requires an APST-specific age relaxation to satisfy the eligibility requirement can thereafter seek consideration against an Un-Reserved vacancy on the same footing as a candidate who satisfies the general eligibility conditions.

The Arunachal Pradesh Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age-Limit for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2014 prescribe the upper age-limit for direct recruitment and, under Rule 6, provide a five-year age concession to APST candidates for posts filled by direct recruitment. The Rules thus recognise an age concession in favour of APST candidates. The relevant question, however, is whether a candidate who requires such concession in order to satisfy the prescribed age condition can thereafter claim that he has competed against an Un-Reserved vacancy on the same standard as a candidate who was required to satisfy the general age-limit without any such concession.

An APST candidate is not, merely by reason of his status, prohibited from applying or competing against an Un-Reserved vacancy. The distinction lies in the standard applicable to such competition. A candidate seeking consideration against an Un-Reserved vacancy must satisfy the eligibility conditions applicable to that vacancy without relying upon a concession which is available to him only by reason of his reserved category status. Where the candidate's very eligibility to participate depends upon such category-specific relaxation, he cannot simultaneously claim that he has competed on the same standard as a candidate who satisfied the general eligibility conditions without availing such relaxation.

This distinction finds direct support in the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. The O.M. distinguishes between reserved category candidates who are selected on the same standards as general candidates and those who are selected by applying a relaxed standard. It specifically includes relaxation in age-limit among the concessions which have a bearing upon the treatment of such candidates. Thus, a reserved category candidate who is selected on the same standard as a general candidate may be adjusted against an Un-Reserved vacancy, whereas a candidate who has availed a relaxed standard, including age relaxation, cannot claim treatment as having been selected on the same standard for the purpose of such migration.

The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepa E.V. (Supra), is instructive in this regard. In that case, the appellant was an OBC candidate who had availed the age relaxation available to her and thereafter sought consideration against the General Category on the ground that she had secured marks sufficient for appointment against a general vacancy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 along with the applicable recruitment rules and found a specific restriction against such migration where the candidate had availed the relaxation. The Court accordingly held that the candidate could not claim appointment against the General Category merely on the basis of her marks.

The reasoning in Deepa E.V. (Supra), is important because the Court did not treat the mere fact of obtaining higher marks as sufficient to establish a right to migration. The Court examined the recruitment rules and instructions governing the selection and found that the applicable provisions attached a consequence to the availing of age relaxation. The decision therefore makes a distinction between a case where a relaxation merely facilitates participation in a selection process and a case where the governing rules or instructions provide that a candidate who has availed such relaxation cannot thereafter be treated as having competed on the same standard for an Un-Reserved vacancy.

The reliance placed by the petitioners upon Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), therefore, does not by itself advance their case. In Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the statutory and administrative scheme applicable in Uttar Pradesh, which did not contain a specific restriction against consideration of reserved category candidates for General Category posts merely because they had availed the relevant relaxation. In that factual and statutory setting, the Court treated the relaxation as not taking the candidates outside the field of open competition. The subsequent judgment in Deepa E.V. (Supra), specifically noticed this distinction and held that the principle in Jitendra Kumar Singh (Supra), could not be applied where the applicable rules and instructions contained a restriction against such migration.

The distinction drawn in Deepa E.V. (Supra) has now been authoritatively reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajib Roy (Supra). The case itself concerned reserved category candidates who had availed age relaxation in a recruitment for Constable (GD) and thereafter sought appointment against Un-Reserved vacancies on the basis of higher marks. The Supreme Court considered the earlier decisions, including Jitendra Kumar Singh and Deepa E.V. (Supra) and summarised the position that whether a reserved category candidate who has availed age or fee relaxation can be appointed against an Un-Reserved vacancy depends upon the governing recruitment rules or employment notification. Where there is no embargo, migration may be permissible; where the applicable framework imposes an embargo, such migration cannot be permitted.

The decision in Sajib Roy (Supra), is particularly relevant to the present case because the circumstances before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also involved candidates who had availed age relaxation and thereafter relied upon their higher marks to claim Un-Reserved vacancies. The Supreme Court ultimately held that, in the teeth of the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998, the candidates who had availed age relaxation could not be treated as eligible for appointment against the Un-Reserved vacancies. The judgment therefore makes it clear that the higher merit of a reserved category candidate cannot, by itself, overcome an applicable restriction arising from the recruitment framework.

The same principle finds further consideration in G. Kiran (Supra), where the Supreme Hon’ble Court examined the claim of a reserved category candidate who had availed relaxation at an earlier stage of the selection and thereafter sought treatment as a General Merit candidate on the basis of his final marks. The Court considered the effect of the relaxation in the context of the recruitment scheme and the earlier decisions on migration. The decision reinforces that the question cannot be determined merely by looking at the final marks secured by the candidate; the nature of the relaxation and the rules governing its consequence have to be examined first.

The authorities, therefore, do not lay down an absolute proposition that an APST candidate can never compete against an Un-Reserved vacancy after availing any concession. What is relevant is the scheme governing the recruitment. If the applicable rules and instructions permit migration despite the concession, a candidate satisfying the other requirements may claim consideration on merit. But where the applicable rules and instructions restrict such migration after a category-specific relaxation has been availed, the candidate cannot rely upon that relaxation to establish eligibility and, at the same time, claim consideration against an Un-Reserved vacancy on the general standard.

The position has to be considered in the facts of the present case. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 448/2025 himself declared in his application that he belonged to the APST category. His age as on 01.01.2020 was 23 years, 2 months and 14 days, whereas the prescribed age-limit for consideration against the Un-Reserved vacancy was 17 to 21 years. He was thus beyond the prescribed general upper age-limit. His eligibility to participate in the recruitment process could consequently arise only by virtue of the age concession available to him as an APST candidate.

At the same time, no APST vacancy had been advertised for Upper Siang district and the petitioner sought consideration against the general pool. In such circumstances, he could not rely upon the APST-specific age concession to cross the eligibility threshold and thereafter claim that, for the purpose of appointment against an Un-Reserved vacancy, he stood on exactly the same footing as a candidate who satisfied the general age-limit without any relaxation. The benefit which enabled him to overcome the general age bar cannot, in the same selection, be disregarded when determining whether he satisfied the standard applicable to the Un-Reserved vacancy.

The record further shows that this issue was considered during the processing of the result and was not raised for the first time after the petitioner made his representation. The Screening Committee specifically recorded, in relation to the petitioner, that although he was considered for the General candidate vacancy on the basis of merit, he was over-age for the General Category and there was no APST vacancy available in Upper Siang district. The exclusion of his candidature was therefore based upon an eligibility issue considered during scrutiny of the result and was not a subsequent alteration of the selection criteria.

The petitioner's reliance upon his score of 132.5 marks does not alter the position. Even if his marks were higher than those secured by a candidate ultimately recommended against an Un-Reserved vacancy, merit can be compared only amongst candidates who are eligible to compete for that vacancy on the applicable standard. A higher score obtained by a candidate who does not satisfy the eligibility condition cannot cure the absence of eligibility. The marks secured at a subsequent stage of the selection cannot retrospectively validate an eligibility which did not exist on the relevant date.

The same reasoning applies to the petitioner's participation in the PST/PET and written examination. The advertisement itself made the selection provisional and reserved to the Board the right to reject the candidature of an ineligible candidate at any stage of recruitment. The issuance of an admit card or permitting a candidate to participate in successive stages of the selection process cannot amount to a waiver of a mandatory eligibility condition. Participation in the process may create an expectation of consideration, but it does not create an indefeasible right to appointment contrary to the prescribed eligibility conditions.

The second issue concerns the prayer for relaxation of the minimum qualifying marks. The relevant provisions are contained in the Minimum Qualifying Marks for Recruitment to Group A, B and C Posts and Common Examination Scheme (for Group-C Posts) Rules, 2023. Rule 4(a) permits the APSSB to recommend APST and PwD candidates by applying relaxed standards where the Board is of the opinion that sufficient candidates belonging to those categories are not likely to qualify on the general standard in order to fill the vacancies reserved for them. Rule 5 further requires the criteria regarding cut-off marks fixed by the Board to be published before declaration of the result.

The scheme of the Rules does not confer an automatic entitlement upon every APST candidate who fails to secure the notified qualifying marks. The power of relaxation is dependent upon the Board forming the requisite opinion in the circumstances contemplated by the Rules. The existence of such power, therefore, does not mean that an individual candidate who has fallen short of the notified standard acquires a right to demand its reduction.

In the present case, the qualifying standard of 33% had been notified before the written examination and the candidates participated in the examination with knowledge of that standard. The petitioners cannot, after completion of the examination, seek a reduction of the qualifying marks merely because their individual scores fell below the prescribed level. Such a course would alter the basis on which the candidates participated in the examination.

The material placed before the Court further shows that the Board had considered the performance of candidates belonging to different categories in preceding examinations. By order dated 06.12.2024, the minimum qualifying marks for Ex-Servicemen were fixed at 20% for the Secondary Level Examination, while the material considered by the Board indicated that APST and PwD candidates had been adequately qualifying at the existing standard of 33%. The decision not to extend a similar relaxation to APST candidates was therefore not shown to be based upon an absence of consideration of the concerned category.

The fact that relaxation was granted to Ex-Servicemen cannot, by itself, establish discrimination against APST candidates. The two categories are distinct, and the Board was entitled to consider the position of each category on the basis of the material available before it. The grant of relaxation to one category, therefore, does not by itself mean that the same relaxation must also be granted to another category.

The comparatively small number of candidates recommended against the advertised vacancies also cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for directing relaxation of the qualifying marks. Likewise, the fact that some petitioners fell short of the prescribed marks by a narrow margin cannot justify retrospective alteration of the standard. Once the qualifying marks had been notified before the examination, changing them after the examination would disturb the uniform basis on which the selection was undertaken.

The petitioners have also questioned the difficulty and standard of the question paper. The respondents have stated that the examination was conducted in accordance with the syllabus and examination scheme applicable to the post. Mere difficulty of some questions, or the perception that the paper was of a higher level, cannot by itself justify alteration of the qualifying standard after completion of the examination. No sufficient material has been placed before the Court to show that the examination was conducted contrary to the notified scheme.

The withdrawal of the requirement of securing 45% marks in aggregate stands on a different footing. The said requirement was withdrawn pursuant to the Government O.M. dated 10.06.2022 and the consequential notice dated 15.06.2022 was uploaded on the official website of the APSSB before the examination. The withdrawal was, therefore, a change made before the examination and cannot be equated with a post-examination reduction of the qualifying standard.

The subsequent publication of the OMR sheets and answer keys also does not, by itself, establish any illegality in the selection process. The final result was declared on 12.08.2025 and the OMR sheets and answer keys were thereafter made available on the APSSB website on 19.08.2025. No material has been placed before the Court to show that the subsequent publication caused any prejudice to the petitioners or otherwise affected the validity of the result.

The subsequent Government Notification dated 05.09.2025, granting one-time relaxation of the upper age-limit, has no application to the selection in question. The notification was issued having regard to the considerable delay in conducting the examination and was intended to enable candidates to participate in the ensuing recruitment for Constable posts. There is nothing in the notification to indicate that the completed selection was reopened or that the qualifying marks or other conditions applicable to the examination already conducted were retrospectively altered.

This Court is conscious of the fact that the recruitment involved a substantial number of advertised vacancies and that the petitioners claim either to have secured marks higher than some of the selected candidates or to have fallen short of the qualifying marks only marginally. These facts, however, cannot by themselves alter the eligibility conditions or the qualifying standard applicable to the selection. Public appointments have to be made in accordance with the applicable recruitment framework, and such considerations cannot justify alteration of a notified qualifying standard after completion of the selection.

In the present case, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 448/2025 was above the general upper age-limit on the relevant date and could enter the selection process only by virtue of the APST age concession. Having sought consideration against an Un-Reserved vacancy, he was required to satisfy the standard applicable to such vacancy. The decisions in Deepa E.V., Sajib Roy and G. Kiran (supra), read with the distinction drawn from Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), support the conclusion that the consequence of availing a category-specific relaxation has to be determined with reference to the applicable recruitment rules and instructions.

So far as the claim for relaxation of the minimum qualifying marks is concerned, the petitioners have also failed to establish any enforceable right under the Rules of 2023. The notified standard of 33% was in place before the examination, and the material placed before the Court does not show that the Board's decision not to extend relaxation to APST candidates was arbitrary, unreasonable or contrary to the Rules. Nor can the Court retrospectively alter the qualifying standard merely because vacancies remained unfilled or some candidates fell short of the prescribed marks.

The petitioners have, therefore, failed to establish an enforceable right either to claim consideration against the Un-Reserved vacancies after relying upon the APST-specific age relaxation or to seek retrospective reduction of the minimum qualifying marks. Their participation in the selection process, issuance of admit cards, completion of PST/PET, or securing of marks higher than some selected candidates cannot create such a right.

For the aforesaid reasons, no ground is made out for interference with the selection process pursuant to Advertisement dated 21.01.2020 or with the decision of the respondents in determining the eligibility and qualifying standards applicable, thereto.

The writ petitions accordingly fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.