As per case facts, unsuccessful candidates for Reader posts challenged the recruitment notice's minimum cut-off marks (35 percent in each paper/subject and 40 percent aggregate) and the final result. They ... argued that Service Rules lacked such conditions and the selection committee deviated from the syllabus. Petitioners participated, qualified written exams, but failed to secure the minimum marks in practical tests and viva-voce. The question arose whether the High Court could prescribe minimum qualifying marks without explicit statutory rule provisions, and if petitioners, after participation, could challenge the selection process. Finally, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming its power to evolve selection procedures for selecting meritorious candidates, even when rules are silent. It held that minimum cut-off marks are valid and that candidates cannot challenge the selection process after voluntarily participating and failing to qualify.