TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court held in Tej Prakash Pathak Vs Rajasthan High Court (2024)12SCR28 held that eligibility criteria cannot be changed midway during recruitment.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Rajasthan High Court issued advertisement for appointment of 13 translators from existing employees on 17th September, 2009. Examination was conducted on 19th December, 2009 and result was declared on 20th February, 2010 wherein in only three candidates were declared successful as Chief justice ordered that only candidates scoring 75% were to be declared successful.
Writ Petition was filed on the ground that the stipulation of scoring 75% has been introduced midway, which was dismissed. SLP was filed before Supreme Court which was referred to the Constitution Bench.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court noted that law governing recruitment to public services are governed by Article 14 and Article 16. The legal principle “the rules of the game must not be changed mid-way or after the game has been played” denotes firstly that eligibility criteria of the candidates seeking employment and secondly the method and manner of making the selection cannot be changed midway.
Cut-off date with reference to which eligibility has to be determined is the date appointed by the relevant service rules, where no such cut-off date is provided in the rules, then it will be the date appointed in the advertisement inviting applications and if there is no such date appointed, then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received.
The Supreme Court noted that the law is settled that after commencement of the recruitment process eligibility criteria cannot be altered as same will be in violation of Article 16.
The issue before the court was whether the rules of the game qua method and making of selection can be changed or altered after commencement of the recruitment process.
The Supreme Court noted that the doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through the game or after the game is played is predicated on the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court observed that candidates participating in a recruitment process have legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non-arbitrary. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom or established procedure.
The Supreme Court noted that discernable ratio in K. Manjusree Vs State of A. P. (2008) 3 SCC is that the criterion for selection is not to be changed after completion of the selection process, though in the absence of rules to the contrary the Selection Committee may fix minimum marks either for written examination or for interview for purposes of selection. But if such minimum marks are fixed, it must be done before commencement of selection process.
The Supreme Court noted that the decision in K. Manjusree does not proscribe setting out of benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process but mandates that it should not be set after the stage is over, in other words after the game has already been played. This view is in consonance with the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and meets the legitimate expectation of the candidates as also the requirement of transparency in recruitment of public services and thereby obviates mal-practices in preparation of select list.
The Supreme Court noted that there is no conflict between K. Manjusree and State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220 as Manjusree dealt with right to placed in select list while Subash Chander dealt with right to be appointed from the select list.
The Supreme Court observed that there can therefore be no doubt that where there are no rules or the rules are silent on the subject, administrative instructions may be issued to supplement and fill the gaps in the Rules. In that event administrative instructions may be issued to supplement and fill the gaps in the Rules. In that event administrative instructions would govern the field provided they are not ultra vires the provisions of the Rules or the Statute or the Constitution. But where the Rules expressly or impliedly cover the field, the recruiting body would have to abide by the Rules.
The Supreme Court concluded the following – (i) Recruitment Process commences from the issuance of advertisement, (ii) eligibility criteria cannot be changed midway during recruitment, (iii) the decision in K Manjursree lays down good law and is not conflict with Subash Chander Marwaha (iv) Recruiting body, subject to extant rules may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment procedure to logical end, (v) Placement in select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment.
____________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.
