The Supreme Court stated that recruitment rules cannot be changed during the process unless the rules allow it and Article 14 is met.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled today that the recruitment process for public service positions cannot be altered once it has started, unless the recruitment rules allow for such changes and they are not arbitrary. The Court explained that if the rules or the recruitment advertisement state that the recruiting authority can set standards for different stages, then these standards can be established at any time before that stage to avoid surprising candidates or evaluators. The five-judge Bench, which included Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P.S. Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, stated that the eligibility criteria for the ‘select list’ announced at the start of the recruitment cannot be modified midway unless allowed by the existing rules or the advertisement. If changes are allowed, they must comply with Article 14 and not be arbitrary.
The Court emphasized that recruiting bodies can create suitable procedures for recruitment as long as they follow the existing rules and ensure transparency, fairness, and a logical connection to the goals intended. It also noted that if the rules do not address certain issues, administrative instructions can be used to fill those gaps. Being on the select list does not guarantee a job, and the State can decide not to fill a vacancy. However, if there are vacancies, the recruitment authority cannot unfairly deny a job to someone on the select list.
The Bench considered two main issues: whether the law was correctly established in K. Manjusree v State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) and if the selection process rules could be changed after recruitment had started. The Court noted that the goal of selecting candidates for public service is to choose the most suitable person for the job. It emphasized that employers should have some discretion in creating their selection methods, as long as they follow the principles in Articles 14 and 16 and adhere to service and reservation rules.
The Court stated that, unless there are specific rules against it, the appointing or recruiting authority can create a selection procedure and set benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process. However, any benchmarks must be established before the recruitment begins. If the existing rules or job advertisements allow the authority to set benchmarks at different stages, they can do so at any time before reaching that stage to ensure all parties are informed. Regarding its 2008 ruling in K. Manjusree, the Court clarified that while it does not prohibit setting benchmarks during the recruitment process, they cannot be established after a stage has concluded. This approach aligns with the principle against arbitrariness in Article 14, meets candidates’ legitimate expectations, ensures transparency in public service recruitment, and helps prevent misconduct. Thus, the ruling in K. Manjusree was reaffirmed as valid law.
The case began with a notice from the Rajasthan High Court in September 2009, inviting applications for 13 translator positions. According to the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, candidates had to take a written exam and a personal interview. After these steps, the Chief Justice decided that only candidates who scored 75 percent or higher in the written exam would be considered for selection. As a result, only three out of the 21 applicants were deemed suitable for the job. This change in rules led to legal disputes, with some applicants arguing that it was unfair to change the criteria after the process had started, as noted in a Supreme Court order from March 2013.
A three-judge Bench referred the case to a larger Bench, stating that while there is a strict ban on making retrospective laws in criminal matters, other legal rights can be changed retroactively by legislative bodies. However, the Court warned that such powers must not infringe on constitutionally protected rights, like Articles 14 and 16. Changing the rules during or after a process is seen as retrospective lawmaking. The Bench concluded that the issue needs a clear decision from a larger Bench and directed that it be presented to the Chief Justice. In June 2023, the case was sent to the current Constitution Bench.
Cause Title: Tej Prakash Pathak & Others v. Rajasthan High Court & Others [C.A. No. 2634/2013]
