Courts Can't Relax Recruitment Marks: SHC CTD Case Explained

Half a mark.

That is what stood between a candidate and a job in the Counter Terrorism Department. He had done the hard part — cleared the written examination, passed the physical test — and then missed the minimum interview marks by 0.5. Years later, he was still fighting it in the Sindh High Court.

The court's answer? No.

Not because the judges were unsympathetic. Because the law gives them no power to do what he was asking. And that answer — handed down in a recent SHC ruling — carries a lesson for every government job aspirant in Pakistan: prescribed merit criteria are fixed lines, not suggestions. Courts enforce them. They don't redraw them.

If you have ever applied for a police, teaching, or civil service post and wondered what happens when you fall just short, this ruling is worth understanding properly. Not from headlines. From the legal reasoning itself.

Quick Answer: The Sindh High Court dismissed a petition seeking relaxation of minimum interview marks for a CTD recruit who fell short by half a mark. It held courts cannot reduce or round off prescribed marks, cannot create legal rights that do not exist, and will not second-guess an interview board without proven mala fide.

What Exactly Happened in the CTD Recruitment Case?

The facts are straightforward, and they matter — because in service litigation, facts decide almost everything.

Back in 2016, the Sindh Police advertised posts in the Counter Terrorism Department. Naeem Hussain Shah applied, sat the written examination, and cleared it. He then passed the physical test too. Two hurdles down, one to go.

The third hurdle was the interview. The recruitment policy fixed a minimum qualifying mark for the interview stage. He missed it — by half a mark.

Instead of the matter ending there, a petition landed before the Sindh High Court at Karachi. Roughly nine years after the recruitment process, the petitioner asked the court to relax the prescribed marks in his favour and, in effect, treat him as qualified.

The court declared the petition inadmissible. Five distinct legal reasons, each worth examining, because each one answers a question aspirants keep asking.

What Did the Petitioner Argue?

His counsel's argument was the one most rejected candidates reach for: discrimination.

The claim ran like this — candidates who had scored LOWER than him in the written examination were appointed, while he, with a better written score, was kept out over half an interview mark. If the department was willing to take people with weaker written results, why was he being punished? Was that not unequal treatment?

On the surface, it sounds compelling. Many candidates feel exactly this way when they see a final merit list. Mere tajurbe me aksar dekha hai — rejected candidates almost always point at someone who "got in with less."

But the argument misunderstands how staged recruitment works. A written test and an interview are not two columns of the same spreadsheet that can be averaged out. They are separate qualifying gates. Clearing the written exam earns you the right to sit the physical test. Clearing the physical earns you the interview. Clearing the interview — with the prescribed minimum marks — earns you a place on the final merit list.

Someone who scored lower in the written exam but cleared the interview satisfied every gate. The petitioner cleared two gates and fell at the third. They were never standing in the same line.

What Did the Government Argue?

The government's law officer kept it simple, and simplicity won: the recruitment policy contains no provision for reducing the prescribed marks, and no provision for rounding them off.

That is it. That was the whole defence, and it was enough.

Why? Because the department is bound by its own policy. If the policy says the interview qualifying mark is X, the department cannot lawfully treat X minus 0.5 as X. Doing so would not be kindness — it would be a violation of the policy itself. And here is the part candidates miss: the department's hands being tied is actually what protects everyone else in the process.

What Were the Court's Five Holdings?

The judgment reads like a checklist of every "but surely the court can…" argument — and answers each one.

1. Can the Court Reduce or Round Off the Prescribed Marks?

No. Courts interpret law. They don't invent arithmetic exceptions. Where neither the statute, the rules, nor the recruitment policy permits reducing qualifying marks or rounding them up, a judge cannot manufacture that power out of sympathy. Half a mark short is short. The line is the line.

Ask yourself this: if half a mark can be rounded off, why not one mark? Why not five? Once the court starts redrawing the line, there is no principled place to stop. Judges know this. That is why they refuse to start.

2. Does Relaxing Marks for One Candidate Affect Others' Rights?

Yes — and this is the holding candidates least expect, and the one that matters most.

Recruitment is a zero-sum exercise. Posts are limited. If the court relaxes the standard for one candidate and pushes him onto the merit list, someone else — who qualified under the actual rules — gets pushed down or out. The court put it plainly: granting relaxation to one could affect the rights of other candidates.

Those other candidates are not parties before the court. They cannot defend themselves in that courtroom. So the court protects them by refusing to disturb the settled list.

3. Can a Court Create a Legal Right That Doesn't Exist?

No. This is the doctrinal heart of the ruling. Courts enforce rights that exist in law. They do not create new ones.

The petitioner had no legal right to appointment at 0.5 marks below the threshold — because the policy gave him none. Asking the court to appoint him anyway was asking it to invent a right and then enforce its own invention. The court refused, as courts consistently do: jurisdiction is not a blank cheque.

4. Can Judges Second-Guess the Interview Board's Assessment?

No — not without proof of mala fide from the record. Interview marks involve subjective assessment: communication, confidence, composure, suitability for a counter-terrorism role. The court held it cannot replace the interview board's judgment with its own unless mala fide is established from the record.

Read that condition carefully. Mala fide must be established FROM THE RECORD. Not alleged. Not suspected. Not "I feel the board was biased." Proven, with material on the file — a leaked paper, a predetermined list, a board member with a documented conflict of interest. Without that, the board's assessment stands. Judges in robes don't re-conduct interviews from the bench.

5. Does Other Candidates' Success Justify Waiving the Requirement?

No. The discrimination argument failed on its own terms. The fact that candidates with lower written marks were appointed proves nothing about the interview stage, because the interview was a separate qualifying requirement. Success of others despite lower marks in one component cannot justify waiving a mandatory requirement for you.

In equality law, this is the "similarly situated" test. Two people are entitled to equal treatment only when their situations are actually comparable. A candidate who cleared all stages and one who did not are not similarly situated — no matter what their written scores were.

Why Did the Nine-Year Delay Matter?

Here is something the headlines skip: the recruitment process was from 2016. The petition came roughly nine years later.

In writ jurisdiction, there is no fixed limitation period like the Limitation Act 1908 sets for civil suits. But there is something equally lethal: laches — unreasonable delay.

A writ is a discretionary remedy. The court is not bound to grant it even when the law is on your side. And delay is one of the classic grounds for refusal, for three practical reasons:

• Evidence decays. Nine years on, who remembers what happened in an interview room? Records get weeded out. Officers retire or transfer.
• Third-party rights crystallize. The people appointed in 2016–17 have been serving for years — drawing salaries, earning seniority, building lives around those posts. Upending a settled selection after nearly a decade would punish innocent appointees for a dispute they had no part in.
• Finality matters. Recruitment processes must close. If every old selection could be reopened indefinitely, no appointment in Pakistan would ever be secure.

Aksar log ye ghalti karte hain — they wait. They hope the department will "do something." They ask around for months. By the time they reach a lawyer, the delay itself has become the biggest obstacle in their case, bigger than the merits. In service matters, the clock starts ticking the day you learn of the decision — not the day you decide to act.

When CAN a Court Interfere in Recruitment?

Nothing in this ruling says recruitment decisions are beyond judicial review. They aren't. The court left the door open — but only for the right kind of case.

A court can and will interfere where the challenger proves, from the record:

• Mala fide or fraud — a leaked question paper, a predetermined selection list, marks tampered after the fact, a board member deciding the fate of a relative's rival. These are proven with documents, messages, or official records — never with bare allegations.
• Violation of the advertised criteria — the department deviates from its own advertisement or recruitment policy. If the ad promised one formula and the department applied another, that is illegality, not discretion.
• Discrimination on a prohibited ground — rejection because of religion, sect, gender, or ethnicity, rather than merit. Article 25 of the Constitution protects against this.
• Procedural illegality — interviews never actually held, answer scripts lost and marks invented, eligibility rules changed mid-process.

Notice the pattern. Every successful challenge attacks the PROCESS, not the standard. Nobody wins by asking the court to lower the bar. People win by proving the bar was applied dishonestly or unlawfully.

And there is a practical warning attached: official acts carry a presumption of regularity. The burden is on you to dislodge it. "The board didn't like me" is not a case. "The board chairman's nephew was also a candidate and the marks were altered" — with the altered marksheet in hand — is the beginning of one.

How Do You Challenge a Genuinely Unfair Selection?

So the interview was rigged, or the merit list doesn't add up. What now? Here is the sequence that actually works, in order:

Step 1 — Get the record first. Before you allege anything, obtain your marks breakup, the final merit list, the recruitment policy, and the interview board's composition. In Sindh, the Sindh Transparency and Right to Information Act 2016 lets you demand this information from a public body in writing. Most candidates skip this step and file blind. Don't. Your case is only as strong as the documents behind it.

Step 2 — File a departmental representation immediately. Write to the appointing authority — for police recruitment, that typically means the Inspector General of Police Sindh or the departmental recruitment committee — setting out the specific illegality with dates and figures. Keep the receipt. Courts expect you to have knocked on the department's door before knocking on theirs, and the representation itself creates a paper trail with a date on it. That date matters for laches.

Step 3 — Choose the right forum. This confuses people. If you are a candidate who was never appointed, you generally go to the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution — a writ petition. The Service Tribunal (in Sindh, the Sindh Service Tribunal) deals with the terms and conditions of service of civil servants — people already in service. An unsuccessful candidate challenging non-selection is not yet a civil servant, so the writ route is the standard one. Filing in the wrong forum wastes months.

Step 4 — File fast, and plead specifically. A writ petition must allege mala fide with particulars — who, what, when, with which document to prove it. Vague paragraphs like "the selection was tainted with mala fide" get dismissed at the admission stage. Your lawyer needs names, dates, and annexures. Budget realistically: court fees and stamp costs are modest (usually a few hundred to a couple of thousand rupees), but competent High Court counsel in Karachi typically charges anywhere from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 150,000 or more for a contested writ, depending on complexity. Ask for a written fee agreement upfront.

Step 5 — Don't ask for what the court can't give. Frame your prayer around quashing the tainted process or directing a lawful re-evaluation — not around "grant me 0.5 marks." The CTD ruling is now the precedent your opponent's lawyer will quote. Draft around it, not against it.

A related guide on service matters explains how courts treat employment disputes where a clear legal right does exist — the contrast with this case is instructive.

What Are the Common Mistakes Government Job Aspirants Make?

Mere tajurbe me — and in the case files that cross every service lawyer's desk — the same errors repeat:

1. Waiting too long. The single biggest killer of recruitment cases. Every month of unexplained delay strengthens the department's laches defence. If you suspect foul play, move within weeks, not years. Nine years, as the CTD case shows, is fatal.

2. Asking the court for "sympathy marks." Rounding off, grace marks, relaxation — unless the policy itself provides for them, the court cannot invent them. Pleading for them wastes your one shot and tells the judge you have no legal ground.

3. Comparing only one component. "My written score was higher than his" means nothing if he cleared the interview and you didn't. Compare complete qualification profiles, not cherry-picked components.

4. Filing without the merit list. Alleging discrimination without obtaining the final merit list and your own marks breakup is building a house without a foundation. Get the RTI reply first.

5. Vague mala fide allegations. "The process was unfair" is a feeling, not a pleading. Courts dismiss feelings. Name the act, the actor, and the evidence.

6. Attacking settled appointments years later. Once appointees have served for years, courts will protect their settled rights over your belated claim — even if your grievance has some merit. Finality wins.

7. Participating and then challenging the rules. If you sat the process under a published policy without objection, you can rarely challenge that policy afterwards. Object to unfair criteria BEFORE participating — ideally through a representation before the test, or a writ against the advertisement itself.

8. Going to the wrong forum. Candidates file before the Service Tribunal, which returns the petition for lack of jurisdiction over non-appointees, losing months. Know your forum on day one.

If legal costs worry you, check what free legal aid options exist in Pakistan before assuming you can't afford to fight.

Documents Checklist: What to Gather Before Seeing a Lawyer

Walk into your lawyer's office with this file ready, and you will save yourself two or three wasted sittings:

• [ ] The original advertisement and the recruitment policy/rules (the document that fixed the qualifying marks)
• [ ] Your application form copy and admit card / roll number slip
• [ ] Written examination result (your score sheet)
• [ ] Physical test result (for police/CTD-type posts)
• [ ] Interview call letter and your interview marks sheet (via RTI if not provided)
• [ ] The final merit list showing selected candidates and their marks
• [ ] Any rejection or non-selection intimation issued to you
• [ ] Your departmental representation with proof of submission (receipt/diary number)
• [ ] RTI application and reply under the Sindh Transparency and Right to Information Act 2016
• [ ] Your CNIC, domicile, PRC, and educational testimonials (needed as petition annexures)
• [ ] Any evidence of mala fide — messages, altered documents, proof of relationship between board members and selected candidates

Originals plus two photocopy sets. Lawyers love clients who arrive organized; judges notice too.

Three Situations Every Aspirant Should Recognize

Situation 1 — Bilal from Faisalabad, and the rounding trap. Bilal applied for a Punjab Police constable post, cleared the written and the running test, then scored 48 in an interview where 50 was the qualifying mark. His uncle told him courts "give grace marks in such cases." They don't. Bilal's case is the CTD case with different names — no provision for rounding, no legal right created by sympathy. Had Bilal instead discovered that another candidate's interview marks were altered after the board signed the sheet, he would have a case. He didn't. Lesson: falling short is painful, but it isn't actionable by itself.

Situation 2 — Saima from Hyderabad, and the case that could win. Saima applied through the SPSC for a college lecturer post. She cleared the written with a strong score but received shockingly low interview marks. Digging through an RTI reply, she found that one interview board member was the maternal uncle of another candidate who was selected — and that her own interview lasted barely four minutes while others got twenty. She filed a departmental representation within ten days and a writ petition within two months, annexing the board composition, the timing record, and the relationship proof. That is mala fide with particulars, on the record, filed promptly. Win or lose, that is a real case — the exact opposite of the CTD petition.

Situation 3 — Daniyal from Karachi, nine years too late. Daniyal's story is nearly identical to the CTD petitioner's: a 2016 process, a narrow miss, years of hoping the department would "review" it. By the time he consulted a lawyer in 2025, the appointees had eight years of service behind them. His lawyer's honest advice: even if we prove everything, laches will defeat us, and the court will not unsettle eight-year-old appointments. Daniyal saved his fee and his false hope. Sometimes the most valuable legal advice is "don't file."

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the Court Round Off My Marks If I'm Short by Half a Mark?

No. Where the policy fixes a minimum mark with no rounding or relaxation, the court cannot invent one. The SHC said it plainly in the CTD case: no provision in law allows reducing prescribed marks or rounding them off. Half a mark short is the same as fifty marks short — the criterion is not met.

Candidates With Lower Written Marks Got Selected. Isn't That Discrimination?

Not in the legal sense. Discrimination under Article 25 requires treating similarly situated people differently. A candidate who cleared every stage — including the interview — is not similarly situated to one who failed the interview, whatever their written scores. The stages are separate qualifying gates, and the court compares complete profiles, not single components.

How Late Is Too Late to Challenge a Recruitment?

There's no fixed deadline for writs, but delay beyond a few months starts hurting, and delay beyond a year or two is often fatal. The CTD petition came roughly nine years after the process — a textbook case of laches. Move within weeks of learning the result: get the record, file your representation, and brief counsel promptly.

Should I Go to the Service Tribunal or the High Court?

If you were never appointed and are challenging non-selection, the High Court under Article 199 is the standard forum. The Service Tribunal deals with civil servants' terms of service — people already in the job. Unsuccessful candidates generally can't invoke tribunal jurisdiction, so a tribunal filing usually ends in dismissal for want of jurisdiction and wasted months.

What Does "Mala Fide" Actually Mean in a Recruitment Case?

It means bad faith proven from the record — not a feeling that the result was unfair. Think leaked papers, tampered marksheets, a predetermined selection list, or a board member deciding a relative's competitor. You must plead it with specifics: who did what, when, and which document proves it. Vague allegations of unfairness don't meet the test.

Can I Challenge the Interview Board's Assessment of My Performance?

Almost never on the merits. Courts give interview boards wide deference because interviews assess subjective qualities — confidence, communication, suitability — that a judge can't re-evaluate from a file. The court said it plainly: it won't substitute its own opinion for the board's unless mala fide is established from the record. Attack the process, not the opinion.

What Documents Do I Need Before I See a Lawyer?

The advertisement and recruitment policy, your admit card and all three result sheets (written, physical, interview), the final merit list, any rejection letter, your departmental representation with its receipt, and your RTI request and reply. If you allege foul play, bring that evidence too. Organized papers get you honest advice in the first sitting instead of the third.

Does the Department Have to Share My Marks and the Merit List?

Yes — it's public information. Under the Sindh Transparency and Right to Information Act 2016 (and equivalent laws in other provinces), you can apply in writing to the public body and obtain your marks breakup, the final merit list, and the recruitment policy. If the department stonewalls, that refusal itself can be challenged — and courts draw adverse inferences from unexplained secrecy.

What If the Recruitment Policy Itself Is Unfair?

Then challenge the policy or the advertisement — but do it BEFORE you participate. Courts apply an estoppel principle: if you sat the test under published rules without protest, you accepted those rules. Objecting to the qualifying criteria after failing under them rarely succeeds. The time to attack an unfair ad is when it's published, not after the merit list.

The CTD Petition Was Dismissed. Is There Any Remedy Left?

Technically, yes — an intra-court appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 (single judge to Division Bench), or ultimately Supreme Court leave to appeal under Article 185(3). Realistically, though, re-arguing "please relax the marks" faces the same five holdings. Appeals succeed on legal error, not sympathy.

The Bottom Line

Half a mark cost Naeem Hussain Shah a CTD post. Nine years of litigation couldn't buy it back. The Sindh High Court's message to every aspirant is unsentimental but clear: the rules of the game are fixed before you play, the court enforces them as written, and the only challenges that succeed are the ones built on proof of dishonest process — filed fast, pleaded specifically, and aimed at the process rather than the standard.

Know the policy before you apply. Get your documents the day results come out. And if something truly smells wrong, move in weeks — because in service litigation, time isn't just money. Time is the case itself.

For a broader look at employee rights after appointment — where courts DO intervene — see our guide on termination and gratuity rights.