As per case facts, petitioners applied for Class-IV Employee posts, undergoing a written exam with negative marking and normalisation across multiple shifts. They were not selected due to securing negative ... normalised marks, despite alleged unfilled vacancies and the absence of a prescribed minimum qualifying score. The petitioners challenged the results, arguing that selecting candidates with near-zero or negative marks was arbitrary, especially when more than a thousand candidates with negative raw scores were later selected after normalisation led to negligibly positive marks. The question arose whether the State can constitutionally permit public appointments to candidates securing virtually zero or negative marks without prescribing a minimum benchmark of suitability, particularly when internal instructions suggested excluding such candidates. Finally, the Court ruled that selecting candidates with negligibly low normalised marks (e.g., 0.0035 out of 200) is arbitrary, irrational, and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, undermining administrative efficiency and public confidence. The Court quashed the select list for the affected categories, directing a fresh selection process with reasonable minimum qualifying standards and mandating the State Government to frame a policy for minimum qualifying marks in future recruitments within three months.