Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others
"Once a recruitment process begins, the eligibility criteria for selection cannot be changed midway unless the existing rules or a consistent advertisement permit it, and even a permitted change must satisfy Article 14; the selection procedure must be transparent, non-arbitrary and consistent with the rules."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Whether the 'rules of the game' in a recruitment can be changed after the process has begun, for example by prescribing a minimum percentage of marks for selection after the examination has been held?
- (ii)
Whether K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that selection criteria cannot be changed midway, is good law, and how it stands with State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha (1973)?
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 (non-arbitrariness and equality of opportunity in public employment).
- (ii)
The recruitment rules governing the posts, and administrative instructions where the rules are silent.
- (iii)
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (criteria for selection notified at the start cannot be changed midway) and State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 (a candidate in a select list has no indefeasible right to appointment).
Application to Facts & Circumstances
In 2009 the Rajasthan High Court invited applications from its staff for thirteen posts of Translator, and twenty-one candidates took the examination. The notification prescribed no minimum marks for selection, but after the results the Chief Justice directed that only candidates securing 75% would be selected; only three did. The High Court dismissed the unsuccessful candidates' challenge, and in 2013 a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, doubting K. Manjusree in the light of Subash Chander Marwaha, referred the question to a larger Bench.
Writing for the Constitution Bench, Misra J. held that the recruitment process begins with the issue of the advertisement and ends with the filling of the vacancies. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the start, cannot be changed midway unless the existing rules, or an advertisement consistent with them, permit it; even then, the change must satisfy Article 14 and the test of non-arbitrariness.
The recruiting body may devise the procedure for selection, provided it is transparent, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary, has a rational nexus with the object of the recruitment, and conforms to the existing rules. Statutory rules bind the recruiting body; administrative instructions may fill the gaps where the rules are silent.
K. Manjusree was held to be good law and not in conflict with Subash Chander Marwaha, which concerned the right to appointment from a select list. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment, but appointment cannot be arbitrarily denied to those within the zone of consideration.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
The reference was answered in these terms, and the appeals were sent to the regular Bench for decision.
- (ii)
Eligibility criteria notified at the start of a recruitment cannot be changed midway unless the rules or the advertisement permit it, and any permitted change must be non-arbitrary.
- (iii)
The recruiting body may lay down the selection procedure within the rules, but must act transparently and fairly; a candidate in the select list has no indefeasible right to appointment, but cannot be denied it arbitrarily.
Authorities Cited
Full texts open on Indian Kanoon in a new tab.
- K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 : AIR 2008 SC 1470Full text of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh on Indian Kanoon