Eligibility Criteria Can't Be Changed After Commencement Of Recruitment Process Unless Rules Permit So : Supreme Court

The bench of Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra had reserved its judgment on July 18, 2023.

Justice Misra, who wrote the judgment on behalf of the bench, pronounced the following conclusions.

Conclusions :

The recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and filling up of vacancies.

Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list notified at the commencement of the recruitment process cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant rules so permit or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant rules, so permits.

If such change is permissible under the extant rules or advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.

The decision in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another(2008) 3 SCC 512 lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subhash Chand Marwah.

Recruiting bodies subject to the extant rules may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

Extant rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting bodies both in terms of procedure and eligibility. Where the rules are non-existent or silent. administrative instructions may fill in the gaps

Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to an appointment. But the State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentalities cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.

The judgment stated that the appointing authority, in the absence of rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for the selection of a candidate suitable to a post. it may also set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process. If any such benchmark is set, the same is to be stipulated before the commencement of that recruitment process.

"...in our view, the appointing authority/ recruiting authority/ competent authority, in absence of Rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while doing so it may also set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process including written examination and interview. However, if any such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process. But if the extant Rules or the advertisement inviting applications empower the competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of the recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be set any time before that stage is reached so that neither the candidate nor the evaluator/ examiner/ interviewer is taken by surprise."

Background

The issue was referred to the Constitution Bench by a 3-judge bench in the case Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others(2013) 4 SCC 540. In Tej Prakash, the bench doubted the correctness of an earlier decision K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another(2008) 3 SCC 512, where it was held that the selection criteria cannot be changed midway during the process as "it would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible". The Manjusree case held as invalid a subsequent introduction of cut-off for the interview marks, which was not originally stipulated in the notification.

In Tej Prakash, the three-bench judge doubted whether the prohibition against changing the rules of the game could be held as absolute and non-negotiable.

In September 2022, a 5-judge bench led by Justice Indira Banerjee had started hearing the matter. However, the bench was later dissolved in view of the retirements of Justices Banerjee and Hemant Gupta.

Case Title: Tej Prakash Pathak And Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court And Ors. C.A. No. 2634/2013 and connected matters

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 864