The Supreme Court stated that a candidate on the selection list does not have an absolute right to be appointed, even if there are open positions.
The Supreme Court emphasized that being on the selection list does not guarantee a candidate’s appointment, even if there are open positions. The Constitution Bench examined if recruitment rules could be changed after the process had started. This issue came up during the Rajasthan High Court’s hiring for translator roles, where a 75% cut-off was set after the exam had already occurred. Candidates challenged this change, claiming it violated the principle of not altering the “rules of the game” during the recruitment process. The Bench, which included Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and other justices, stated, “Being on the select list does not guarantee an appointment. The State may choose not to fill vacancies for valid reasons. However, if there are vacancies, the State cannot unfairly deny an appointment to someone on the select list.”
The Bench also looked into whether it correctly interpreted the law in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) and if the selection methods could be changed after the recruitment process began. The Supreme Court referenced the “rules of the game” doctrine, which promotes transparency and fairness in public hiring. This doctrine ensures that eligibility criteria remain unchanged once recruitment starts to avoid giving any participant an unfair edge. The Court assessed if the candidates’ reasonable expectations were affected by the late introduction of a qualifying cut-off after the exam.
The Court explained that in the case of K. Manjusree, the recruitment was for choosing District & Sessions Judges (Grade II). The existing rules outlined the qualifications needed but did not specify how the selection should be made. The main point from K. Manjusree was that the selection criteria could not be altered after the selection process had started. However, if there are no rules against it, the Selection Committee can set minimum scores for either the written exam or the interview before the selection process begins.
The Bench further clarified that the concern about K. Manjusree, which suggested that all selected candidates would have to be appointed regardless of their fit for the role, is not valid. K. Manjusree does not state that being on the list of selected candidates guarantees an automatic appointment. The Court also referenced the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, which stated that unless the recruitment rules specify otherwise, the State is not legally required to fill all vacancies. However, this does not give the State the right to act arbitrarily. Any decision not to fill vacancies must be made in good faith for valid reasons, and if vacancies are filled, the State must consider the candidates’ relative merits from the recruitment test, ensuring no discrimination occurs.
The Court decided that the recruitment process for public service cannot be altered once the selection process has started, unless the recruitment rules allow for such changes and the new procedure is fair.
Cause Title: Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 847)
