The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria
Trending Today The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU Role of technology in transforming the Indian judiciary COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 Legal Framework governing reproductive rights and abortion law The Impact of Contract Law on E-Commerce and Online Transactions Indian Parliament The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria —- Supreme court on 7th November, 2024 04 Mar 2025 Table of contents Introduction Facts Issue involved CIVIL APPEAL No. 2634 of 2013 Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors ………. Appellant (s) v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors ……… Respondent (s) Date of judement : 7th November, 2024 Presiding Judges :- DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, JJ Introduction: In a matter posing a legal question of whether the criteria for appointment to a public post could be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has started, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench held the following: Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for the applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the select list cannot be altered midway, unless explicitly allowed by the prevailing rules or the original advertisement, provided it does not contradict those rules; If such change is permissible under the extant rules or advertisement, the change has to meet the standard of Articles 14 of the Constitution and must satisfy the test of non —arbitrariness; Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512. (deals with right to be placed in the select list), is good law and not in conflict with State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 (deals with the right to be appointed from the select list) into consideration. These cases dealt with altogether different issues. Recruiting bodies subject to the extant rules may devise an appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end, provided the procedure is transparent non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary, and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility, however, where the rules are silent, the administrative instructions can fill in the gaps. Placement in the select list does not give a candidate an indefeasible right to employment; the State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons can chose to not fill up the vacancies, however, if vacancies exist the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration. Facts: The present case is concerned with the recruitment process for filling thirteen translator posts in the Rajasthan High Court, which required candidates to first appear for a written exam, followed by a personal interview. Twenty-one candidates participated in the process, but only three were declared successful by the High Court (administrative side). It was later revealed that the Chief Justice of the High Court had imposed a 75 per cent marks criterion for selection, which had not been mentioned in the original recruitment notification. This new criterion was applied retroactively, resulting in the selection of only three candidates and the exclusion of the remaining ones. In response, three unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition challenging the decision, arguing that the imposition of the 75 per cent cutoff amounted to “changing the rules of the game after the game is played,” which was impermissible. The High Court dismissed their petition in March 2010, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court for relief. In 2023, the three-judge bench acknowledged that applying the K. Manjusree (supra) ruling strictly to the present case would compel the Rajasthan High Court to recruit all thirteen candidates, rather than just three. However, the Bench expressed that such a rigid application, without further scrutiny, might not serve the larger public interest or the goal of creating an efficient administrative framework. To support this view, the Bench referenced the Subash Chander Marwaha case, which dealt with the recruitment of civil judges in Haryana, noting that this ruling had not been considered in the Manjusree case. As a result, the matter was referred to a larger Bench for a conclusive ruling…. Issues Involved:- When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the game, or after the game is played Whether the decision in K. Manjusree (supra) is at variance with earlier precedents on the subject Whether the above doctrine applies with equal strictness qua method or procedure for selection as it does qua eligibility criteria Whether procedure for selection stipulated by Act or Rules framed either under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or a Statute could be given a go-bye (a) When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end:- The Court reiterated that the process of recruitment begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment (b) Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the game, or after the game is played:- 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. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article
