The central question was whether authorities could change the “rules of the game” (selection criteria) during or after the recruitment process. The Court upheld the validity of its previous ruling in K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), which prohibited mid-process rule changes.
NEW DELHI: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today (7th Nov) ruled that eligibility criteria or rules for government job selection cannot be altered mid-process or after recruitment has started, unless expressly allowed by existing regulations.
The judgment, was delivered by a Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, after being reserved since July 2023.
The central question was whether authorities could change the “rules of the game” (selection criteria) during or after the recruitment process. The Court upheld the validity of its previous ruling in K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), which prohibited mid-process rule changes.
The Court confirmed K Manjusree as sound law, holding that its authority isn’t diminished by the 1973 State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha decision, which allows the government to set higher qualifying marks to maintain high standards, without giving candidates who meet the minimum criteria an automatic right to selection.
Key conclusions from the Bench included:
- The recruitment process spans from the call for applications to filling vacancies.
- Eligibility criteria cannot be changed mid-process unless permitted by existing rules.
- Recruitment rules must adhere to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, ensuring equality and non-discrimination in public employment.
- Placement on a select list does not guarantee employment.
- K Manjusree remains valid despite not considering Marwaha.
Case Background
This case concerned recruitment for thirteen translator positions in the Rajasthan High Court. Following a written test and interview, only three out of twenty-one candidates were selected based on a new 75% minimum mark requirement set by the High Court’s Chief Justice this criterion had not been disclosed in the initial recruitment notice.
Three candidates who were excluded challenged the decision, arguing that this change unfairly altered the selection criteria after the process had begun. They cited the K Manjusree precedent to argue against such post hoc changes.
A previous Supreme Court Bench had noted that strictly following K Manjusree would require the High Court to recruit thirteen candidates, not three. However, they raised the need for further review to balance procedural fairness with the goal of maintaining efficient public administration, leading to the current Constitution Bench’s conclusive judgment.
Case Title: Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
