Thursday, December 12, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Rules for recruitment to public services cannot be changed midway after beginning of selection process: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that once the selection process for posts began, the ‘rules of the game’ could not be changed midway, unless the relevant rules expressly permitted the same.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj Misra ruled that the eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list notified at the commencement of the recruitment process could not be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant rules or the advertisement, which was not contrary to the extant rules, permitted the same.

If such change was 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, noted the Bench.

Authored by Justice Misra, the verdict pronounced that the recruitment process began with the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and filling up of vacancies.

It said the verdict in K. Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512 laid down good law and was not in conflict with the decision in the Subhash Chand Marwah case.

The Apex Court granted liberty to the recruiting bodies to devise an appropriate procedure, as per the extant rules, for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end, provided the procedure was transparent, non-arbitrary, and had a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

It ruled that the extant rules, having statutory force, were binding on the recruiting bodies, both in terms of procedure and eligibility. Where the rules were non-existent or silent. administrative instructions may fill in the gaps.

The Bench said placement in the select list gave no indefeasible right to an appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if the vacancies existed, the State or its instrumentalities could not arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list, it added.

The matter was referred to the Constitution Bench by a three-judge Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others(2013) 4 SCC 540.

In Tej Prakash, the three-judge Bench doubted the correctness of an earlier judgment delivered in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another(2008) 3 SCC 512, where it was held that the selection criteria could not be changed midway during the process as it would amount to ‘changing the rules of the game after the game was played,’ which was 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 Apex Court doubted whether the prohibition against changing the rules of the game could be held as absolute and non-negotiable.

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

spot_img

News Update