V. Lavanya  Vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu
reserved category candidates. In Tej Prakash (supra) the alteration in procedure in effect led to elimination of selected candidates, still the Court refrained from finding fault with such an alteration, as it was done in public interest. In the present case, the relaxation afforded to the reserved category candidates has in no way eliminated the appellants from the selection process; rather a fair opportunity has been provided to other candidates who can legitimately compete with the appellants herein.Point No.4: Challenge to G.O. Ms. No.71 dated 30.05.2014?38. The appellants have also challenged G.O.Ms. 71, which was issued by the respondents pursuant to the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court. As already noted before, the Single Judge while declining the challenge to G.O.Ms. No. 252 and G.O.Ms. No. 25 had set aside the grading system adopted by the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 252. The Single Judge observed that the grading system adopted in G.O.Ms. No. 252 lacks rationality as it places candidates with the difference of 1 to 9 percentage in the same basket. Accordingly, vide G.O.Ms.No. 71 the Government came up with the grading methodology as indicated supra in para No 10. The appellants have not only challenged the new grading system introduced by G.O. No. 71; but they have also challenged the weightage of marks of 40% earmarked for academic performance. It is their contention that the Government has blindly accepted the recommendation of Single Judge without application of mind.39. As it is evident from the records, distribution of marks for academic performance and TET fixed by the respondents vide G.O. No. 252 continues to be the same even after issuing of G.O. No. 71. That is, for the post of secondary grade teachers weightage of marks obtained in H.Sc. examination, D.T.Ed./D.E.Ed and TET was 15 marks, 25 marks and 60 marks respectively and it continues to be the same. Similarly, for the post of Graduate Assistants weightage of marks obtained in H.Sc. examination, Degree Examination, B.Ed and TET was 10 marks, 15 marks, 15 marks and 60 marks and it also continued to be the same. In such circumstances, we hold that the Madras High Court has correctly held that it is not open to the appellants to challenge the weightage of marks. The TET conducted on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 was pursuant to the issuing of G.O.Ms.No.252 fixing the weightage for the marks in the basic qualification itself in which the appellants have participated. Thus, it is not open to the appellants to challenge the said procedure adopted by the respondents after writing the examination.40. The second aspect of challenge relates to the grading system adopted by the respondents. The respondents have acted as per the directions of the Single Judge of the High Court. The Single Judge in his judgment dated 29.04.2014 while declaring the slab system irrational, suggested a scientific rational method for award of weightage marks with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate in H.Sc./D.T.Ed./D.E.Ed/B.Ed/TET for Secondary Grade Teachers/ Graduate Assistants as the case may be and accordingly make selections. This was accepted by the government in G.O.(Ms.) No.71 dated 30.05.2014 and the respondents have thus come up with the present awarding of weightage marks with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate which is more scientific and appropriate and as compared to the previous grading system contained in G.O. No. 252 which had put candidates obtaining 1-9% marks on the same footing.41. The appellants have maintained that while prescribing the marks for performance in Higher Secondary Examination, the respondents have failed to take into account different Education Boards (CBSE, ICSE, State Boards etc.) conducting Higher Secondary Examination and difference in their marks awarding patterns. As also, the appellants have alleged that respondents failed to consider different streams of education while formulating the grading pattern. It is submitted that unless and until the respondents take note of difference in marking scheme of Education boards, as also the marking scheme of different streams such as Arts, Science etc. a valid grading system cannot be formulated. Equivalence of academic qualifications is a matter for experts and courts normally do not interfere with the decisions of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts (vide University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao (1964) 4 SCR 575 and Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC 76 ). We hold that it is the prerogative of State-Authorities to formulate a system whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents, in formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. We cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of the respondent-State. Moreover, the High Court has also noted that submission of learned Advocate General that almost all the appellants have completed their High Secondary examination from the State Boards.42. The contention that different Boards of Examination have different standards and the examiners who evaluate the scripts are in some places more liberal than others and that the candidates who acquired qualifications decades back had to suffer strict evaluation as compared to the candidates who have qualified in the recent past facing liberal evaluation criteria, are all hypothetical arguments without any pleading and supporting material disclosed in the Writ Petitions. As noted earlier, weightage of marks for academic performance and TET fixed vide G.O.(Ms.) No.252 dated 05.10.2012 continues to be the same even after issuing G.O.(Ms.)No.71 dated 30.05.2014. Having taken up the examination as per G.O.(Ms.) No.252, the appellants cannot challenge the award of weightage for the distribution of marks for academic performance with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. The appellants are not justified in challenging every rational decision taken by the respondents to make the selection process more fair and reasonable merely because the outcome does not favour the limited individual interests of the appellants.
0[ds]25. The idea behind laying down NCTE Guidelines for conducting TET was to bring about uniformity and certainty in the standards and quality of education being imparted to the students across the nation. However, at the same time the framers of the guidelines took note of the hugedisparity existing in the nation and accordingly, by virtue of Clause No. 9 enabled the respective state governments/authorities to provide relaxation to the candidates belonging to socially backward classes. As discussed earlier, such a provision is in line with the principles enshrined in the Constitution. State Government cannot be faulted for discharging its constitutional obligation of upliftment of socially and economically backward Communities by providing 5% relaxation to candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslim), Most Backward Classes,s and Persons with Disabilityhardly needs to be emphasized that the State has a legitimate and substantial interest in ameliorating or eliminating where feasible, the disabling effects of identified discrimination. It is a duty cast upon the State, by the Constitution, to remedy the effects of "societal discrimination". Provision for relaxation in TET pass marks has to be looked into from this angle which is in tune with the constitutional philosophy. After all it only ensures that such candidates belonging to reserved category become eligible for appointment as primary teachers. On the other hand, when it comes to selection process such reserved category candidates have to compete with general category candidates wherein due regard for merit is given. Therefore, only those candidates belonging to reserved category who are found meritorious in selection are ultimately appointed. We are of the opinion that in this manner the two constitutional goals, that of rendering quality education on the one hand and providing "equality of opportunity to the unprivileged class on the other hand, are adequately met and rightly balanced.55.We, thus, do not agree with the interpretation that is given by the High Court and answer Question No.1 holding that relaxation prescribed in letter dated March 23, 2011 in pass marks in TET examination for different reserved categories mentioned therein is legal and valid inare entirely in agreement with the above judgment in Vikas Sankhala case.State of Rajasthan by its Notification dated 29.07.2011 has granted similar relaxation of 5% marks in the qualifying marks relatable to TET exams conducted in the State of Rajasthan. The Rajasthan High Court struck down the relaxation granted by the State of Rajasthan on the ground that such relaxation was in excess of extant reservation policy. In Vikas Sankhala and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Etc. (2016) 10 SCALE 163  , this Court reversed the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court holding that State has a legitimate right in granting such relaxation to SC/ST, OBC etc. After referring to Nivedita Jain and M. Nagaraj case, this Court in paras (51), (54) and (55) held asin the aforesaid context, when our Constitution envisages equal respect and concern for each individual in the society and the attainment of the goal requires special attention to be paid to some, that ought to be done. Giving of desired concessions to the reserved category persons, thus, ensures equality as a levelling process. At jurisprudential level, whether reservation policies are defended on compensatory principles, utilitarian principles or on the principles of distributive justice, fact remains that the very ethos of such policies is to bring out equality, by taking affirmative action. Indian Constitution has made adequate enabling provisions empowering the State to provide such concessions.Granting relaxation to SC/ST, OBC, physically handicapped anddenotified communities isin furtherance of the constitutional obligation of the State to theand create an equalfield. After referring to clause 9 of the NCTE Guidelines, the Madras High Court rightly held that the Government of Tamil Nadu has acted in exercise of the powers conferred under clause 9 of the Guidelines issued by the NCTE. Madurai Bench was not right in quashing G.O.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 on the ground that such relaxation "based upon the theory of social justice is actually destructive of the very fabric of the social justice". In our considered view, the judgment of the Madurai Bench has not kept in view the constitutional obligation of the State to provide equalfield to the under privileged. In consonance with the M. Nagaraj case, an affirmative action taken by State Government granting relaxation for TET would not amount to dilution of standards and hence the view taken by the Madurai Bench is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the view of Madurai Bench quashing the impugned G.O. on the ground of alleged change in the stand of the Government. Considering the representation from various quarters, it was a policy decision taken by the Government to relax marks for TET pass for specified andcommunities. It is a matter of State policy to frame and prescribe selection norms with regard to services and posts connected with the affairs of the State. It isthat courts cannot interfere with the policy decisions of the State especially when the policy decision is taken in public interest to further the advancement of reserved categories. A policy decision taken by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India is subservient only to the mandate of the constitutional provisions and the recruitment rules framed by the State itself, either in terms of a legislative act or an executive order. The relaxation provided by the State Government and criteria of selection laid down vide impugned government orders are in exercise of the powers provided under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and being a policy decision in terms of its extant reservation policy cannot be impeached on the ground that the relaxation has been given to suit some specific class of individuals.30. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions that there can be no question of estoppels against the Government in the exercise of its legislative, sovereign or executive powers (vide Excise Commissioner U.P., Allahabad v. Ram Kumar (1976) 3 SCC 540     and M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1973) 2 SCC 650  ). The view taken by Madurai Bench as regards the stand of the Government to relax the norms allegedly in contradiction to its earlier stand is not sustainable in law.Appellants appeared in the TET conducted on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013. Respondents were to select the suitable candidates. As per the selection criteria laid down in G.O. Ms. No. 252 laid down that the candidates have to secure minimum 60% in TET so as to qualify the said exam. The weightage of the marks secured in TET was 60% and that of academic qualification was 40%. It is true that the candidates who passed TET were called to attend certificate verification on 23.01.2014 and 24.01.2014; but the selection process has not been completed. Later on, G.O.Ms. No.25 dated 06.02.2014 was issued granting relaxation of 5% marks to SC, ST, backward classes, physically handicapped,communities etc. The purpose of relaxation was to increase the participation of candidates belonging to backward classes in States pool of teachers. The State Government merely widened the ambit of TET so as to reach out to those candidates belonging to the deprived section of the society who were not able to compete, inspite of possessing good academic records and qualifications. The change brought about in the selection criteria is Governments prerogative. In terms of their extant reservation policy, the State Government is free to take actions suitable to theconditions prevalent in the State, especially with regard to selection of candidates belonging to reserved category to be employed in State Service. Merely, because the Government has widened the ambit of selection, so as to enable more and more candidates to take part in the selection process, the right of candidates who were already in the process cannot be said to have been adversely affected. It is in the interest of reserved category of candidates that more candidates take part in the selection process and best and most efficient of them get selected. This will not amount to change in the criteria for selection after the selection process commenced.The Government has not changed the rules of selection so far as the present appellants are concerned. Weightage of marks obtained in TET as well as that of academic qualification is still the same. The entire selection process conforms to the equitable standards laid down by the State Government in line with the principles enshrined in the Constitution and the extant reservation policy of the State. It is not the case where basic eligibility criteria has been altered in the midst of the selection process. Conducting TET and calling for certificate verification thereafter is an exercise which the State Government is obliged to conduct every year as per the Guidelines issued by NCTE. By calling for CV along with certificates of other requisite academic qualifications, a candidates overall eligibility is ascertained and then he/she is recruited. Such an exercise by which qualified teachers in the State are segregated and correspondingly certified to that effect cannot be equated to finalization of select list which comes at a much later stage. No prejudice has been caused to the appellants, since the marks obtained by the appellants in TET are to remain valid for a period of seven years, based on which they can compete for the future vacancies. Merely because appellants were called for certificate verification, it cannot be contended that they have acquired a legal right to the post. Impugned G.O. Ms.No.25 did not take away the rights of the appellants from being considered on their own merits as pointed out by the Madras Bench. We entirely agree with the views taken by the Madras Bench that "by merely allowing more persons to compete, the petitioners cannot contend that their accrued right has been taken away".The State Government cannot be faulted for altering the selection criteria by relaxing 5% marks in favour of reserved category candidates. In Tej Prakash (supra) the alteration in procedure in effect led to elimination of selected candidates, still the Court refrained from finding fault with such an alteration, as it was done in public interest. In the present case, the relaxation afforded to the reserved category candidates has in no way eliminated the appellants from the selection process; rather a fair opportunity has been provided to other candidates who can legitimately compete with the appellants herein.As it is evident from the records, distribution of marks for academic performance and TET fixed by the respondents vide G.O. No. 252 continues to be the same even after issuing of G.O. No. 71. That is, for the post of secondary grade teachers weightage of marks obtained in H.Sc. examination, D.T.Ed./D.E.Ed and TET was 15 marks, 25 marks and 60 marks respectively and it continues to be the same. Similarly, for the post of Graduate Assistants weightage of marks obtained in H.Sc. examination, Degree Examination, B.Ed and TET was 10 marks, 15 marks, 15 marks and 60 marks and it also continued to be the same. In such circumstances, we hold that the Madras High Court has correctly held that it is not open to the appellants to challenge the weightage of marks. The TET conducted on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 was pursuant to the issuing of G.O.Ms.No.252 fixing the weightage for the marks in the basic qualification itself in which the appellants have participated. Thus, it is not open to the appellants to challenge the said procedure adopted by the respondents after writing thehold that it is the prerogative ofto formulate a system whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents, in formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. We cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of theMoreover, the High Court has also noted that submission of learned Advocate General that almost all the appellants have completed their High Secondary examination from the State Boards.42. The contention that different Boards of Examination have different standards and the examiners who evaluate the scripts are in some places more liberal than others and that the candidates who acquired qualifications decades back had to suffer strict evaluation as compared to the candidates who have qualified in the recent past facing liberal evaluation criteria, are all hypothetical arguments without any pleading and supporting material disclosed in the Writ Petitions. As noted earlier, weightage of marks for academic performance and TET fixed vide G.O.(Ms.) No.252 dated 05.10.2012 continues to be the same even after issuing G.O.(Ms.)No.71 dated 30.05.2014. Having taken up the examination as per G.O.(Ms.) No.252, the appellants cannot challenge the award of weightage for the distribution of marks for academic performance with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. The appellants are not justified in challenging every rational decision taken by the respondents to make the selection process more fair and reasonable merely because the outcome does not favour the limited individual interests of the appellants.
### Instruction:
Estimate the outcome of the case (positive (1) or negative (0) for the appellant) and then give a reasoned explanation by examining important sentences within the case documentation.

### Input:
reserved category candidates. In Tej Prakash (supra) the alteration in procedure in effect led to elimination of selected candidates, still the Court refrained from finding fault with such an alteration, as it was done in public interest. In the present case, the relaxation afforded to the reserved category candidates has in no way eliminated the appellants from the selection process; rather a fair opportunity has been provided to other candidates who can legitimately compete with the appellants herein.Point No.4: Challenge to G.O. Ms. No.71 dated 30.05.2014?38. The appellants have also challenged G.O.Ms. 71, which was issued by the respondents pursuant to the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court. As already noted before, the Single Judge while declining the challenge to G.O.Ms. No. 252 and G.O.Ms. No. 25 had set aside the grading system adopted by the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 252. The Single Judge observed that the grading system adopted in G.O.Ms. No. 252 lacks rationality as it places candidates with the difference of 1 to 9 percentage in the same basket. Accordingly, vide G.O.Ms.No. 71 the Government came up with the grading methodology as indicated supra in para No 10. The appellants have not only challenged the new grading system introduced by G.O. No. 71; but they have also challenged the weightage of marks of 40% earmarked for academic performance. It is their contention that the Government has blindly accepted the recommendation of Single Judge without application of mind.39. As it is evident from the records, distribution of marks for academic performance and TET fixed by the respondents vide G.O. No. 252 continues to be the same even after issuing of G.O. No. 71. That is, for the post of secondary grade teachers weightage of marks obtained in H.Sc. examination, D.T.Ed./D.E.Ed and TET was 15 marks, 25 marks and 60 marks respectively and it continues to be the same. Similarly, for the post of Graduate Assistants weightage of marks obtained in H.Sc. examination, Degree Examination, B.Ed and TET was 10 marks, 15 marks, 15 marks and 60 marks and it also continued to be the same. In such circumstances, we hold that the Madras High Court has correctly held that it is not open to the appellants to challenge the weightage of marks. The TET conducted on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 was pursuant to the issuing of G.O.Ms.No.252 fixing the weightage for the marks in the basic qualification itself in which the appellants have participated. Thus, it is not open to the appellants to challenge the said procedure adopted by the respondents after writing the examination.40. The second aspect of challenge relates to the grading system adopted by the respondents. The respondents have acted as per the directions of the Single Judge of the High Court. The Single Judge in his judgment dated 29.04.2014 while declaring the slab system irrational, suggested a scientific rational method for award of weightage marks with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate in H.Sc./D.T.Ed./D.E.Ed/B.Ed/TET for Secondary Grade Teachers/ Graduate Assistants as the case may be and accordingly make selections. This was accepted by the government in G.O.(Ms.) No.71 dated 30.05.2014 and the respondents have thus come up with the present awarding of weightage marks with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate which is more scientific and appropriate and as compared to the previous grading system contained in G.O. No. 252 which had put candidates obtaining 1-9% marks on the same footing.41. The appellants have maintained that while prescribing the marks for performance in Higher Secondary Examination, the respondents have failed to take into account different Education Boards (CBSE, ICSE, State Boards etc.) conducting Higher Secondary Examination and difference in their marks awarding patterns. As also, the appellants have alleged that respondents failed to consider different streams of education while formulating the grading pattern. It is submitted that unless and until the respondents take note of difference in marking scheme of Education boards, as also the marking scheme of different streams such as Arts, Science etc. a valid grading system cannot be formulated. Equivalence of academic qualifications is a matter for experts and courts normally do not interfere with the decisions of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts (vide University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao (1964) 4 SCR 575 and Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC 76 ). We hold that it is the prerogative of State-Authorities to formulate a system whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents, in formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. We cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of the respondent-State. Moreover, the High Court has also noted that submission of learned Advocate General that almost all the appellants have completed their High Secondary examination from the State Boards.42. The contention that different Boards of Examination have different standards and the examiners who evaluate the scripts are in some places more liberal than others and that the candidates who acquired qualifications decades back had to suffer strict evaluation as compared to the candidates who have qualified in the recent past facing liberal evaluation criteria, are all hypothetical arguments without any pleading and supporting material disclosed in the Writ Petitions. As noted earlier, weightage of marks for academic performance and TET fixed vide G.O.(Ms.) No.252 dated 05.10.2012 continues to be the same even after issuing G.O.(Ms.)No.71 dated 30.05.2014. Having taken up the examination as per G.O.(Ms.) No.252, the appellants cannot challenge the award of weightage for the distribution of marks for academic performance with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. The appellants are not justified in challenging every rational decision taken by the respondents to make the selection process more fair and reasonable merely because the outcome does not favour the limited individual interests of the appellants.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
ambit of TET so as to reach out to those candidates belonging to the deprived section of the society who were not able to compete, inspite of possessing good academic records and qualifications. The change brought about in the selection criteria is Governments prerogative. In terms of their extant reservation policy, the State Government is free to take actions suitable to theconditions prevalent in the State, especially with regard to selection of candidates belonging to reserved category to be employed in State Service. Merely, because the Government has widened the ambit of selection, so as to enable more and more candidates to take part in the selection process, the right of candidates who were already in the process cannot be said to have been adversely affected. It is in the interest of reserved category of candidates that more candidates take part in the selection process and best and most efficient of them get selected. This will not amount to change in the criteria for selection after the selection process commenced.The Government has not changed the rules of selection so far as the present appellants are concerned. Weightage of marks obtained in TET as well as that of academic qualification is still the same. The entire selection process conforms to the equitable standards laid down by the State Government in line with the principles enshrined in the Constitution and the extant reservation policy of the State. It is not the case where basic eligibility criteria has been altered in the midst of the selection process. Conducting TET and calling for certificate verification thereafter is an exercise which the State Government is obliged to conduct every year as per the Guidelines issued by NCTE. By calling for CV along with certificates of other requisite academic qualifications, a candidates overall eligibility is ascertained and then he/she is recruited. Such an exercise by which qualified teachers in the State are segregated and correspondingly certified to that effect cannot be equated to finalization of select list which comes at a much later stage. No prejudice has been caused to the appellants, since the marks obtained by the appellants in TET are to remain valid for a period of seven years, based on which they can compete for the future vacancies. Merely because appellants were called for certificate verification, it cannot be contended that they have acquired a legal right to the post. Impugned G.O. Ms.No.25 did not take away the rights of the appellants from being considered on their own merits as pointed out by the Madras Bench. We entirely agree with the views taken by the Madras Bench that "by merely allowing more persons to compete, the petitioners cannot contend that their accrued right has been taken away".The State Government cannot be faulted for altering the selection criteria by relaxing 5% marks in favour of reserved category candidates. In Tej Prakash (supra) the alteration in procedure in effect led to elimination of selected candidates, still the Court refrained from finding fault with such an alteration, as it was done in public interest. In the present case, the relaxation afforded to the reserved category candidates has in no way eliminated the appellants from the selection process; rather a fair opportunity has been provided to other candidates who can legitimately compete with the appellants herein.As it is evident from the records, distribution of marks for academic performance and TET fixed by the respondents vide G.O. No. 252 continues to be the same even after issuing of G.O. No. 71. That is, for the post of secondary grade teachers weightage of marks obtained in H.Sc. examination, D.T.Ed./D.E.Ed and TET was 15 marks, 25 marks and 60 marks respectively and it continues to be the same. Similarly, for the post of Graduate Assistants weightage of marks obtained in H.Sc. examination, Degree Examination, B.Ed and TET was 10 marks, 15 marks, 15 marks and 60 marks and it also continued to be the same. In such circumstances, we hold that the Madras High Court has correctly held that it is not open to the appellants to challenge the weightage of marks. The TET conducted on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 was pursuant to the issuing of G.O.Ms.No.252 fixing the weightage for the marks in the basic qualification itself in which the appellants have participated. Thus, it is not open to the appellants to challenge the said procedure adopted by the respondents after writing thehold that it is the prerogative ofto formulate a system whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents, in formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. We cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of theMoreover, the High Court has also noted that submission of learned Advocate General that almost all the appellants have completed their High Secondary examination from the State Boards.42. The contention that different Boards of Examination have different standards and the examiners who evaluate the scripts are in some places more liberal than others and that the candidates who acquired qualifications decades back had to suffer strict evaluation as compared to the candidates who have qualified in the recent past facing liberal evaluation criteria, are all hypothetical arguments without any pleading and supporting material disclosed in the Writ Petitions. As noted earlier, weightage of marks for academic performance and TET fixed vide G.O.(Ms.) No.252 dated 05.10.2012 continues to be the same even after issuing G.O.(Ms.)No.71 dated 30.05.2014. Having taken up the examination as per G.O.(Ms.) No.252, the appellants cannot challenge the award of weightage for the distribution of marks for academic performance with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. The appellants are not justified in challenging every rational decision taken by the respondents to make the selection process more fair and reasonable merely because the outcome does not favour the limited individual interests of the appellants.
