Eligibility criteria for govt jobs can’t be changed midway: SC

In an important ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (November 7) held that 'rules of the game' for appointment in government jobs cannot be changed midway unless the procedure permits it to do so.

The verdict was delivered by a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud along with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra. The judgment was reserved in July last year.

The court had to decide whether the criteria for appointment to a public post could be changed by the authorities in the middle or after the process of selection had started.

When recruitment process begins

The five-judge Constitution bench said recruitment process commences from the issuance of advertisement calling for applications and ends with filing up of vacancies.

"Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list notified at the commencement of the recruitment process can't be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant rules so permit or the advertisement which is not contrary to the extant rules so permit," the bench said.

Also read: SC allows LMV license holders to drive transport vehicles up to 7,500 kg

The bench, unanimously held if change of criteria is permissible under the extant rules or advertisement, it would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.

"Recruiting bodies subject to the extant rules may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary and has a rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved," Justice Misra said while pronouncing the verdict.

Benchmark setting

The bench said that extant rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting bodies both in terms of procedure and eligibility.

"Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The state or its instrumentality for bona fide reason may choose not to fill up the vacancy," it said.

However, the bench clarified if vacancies exist, the state or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to persons who are in the zone of consideration in the select list.

The top court said that if the extant rules or the advertisement provides for setting of benchmarks for different stages of recruitment process and if any such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process.

"But if the extant rules or the advertisement inviting application empowers the competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of the recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be set anytime before that stage is reached so that neither the candidates nor the evaluator/examiner/interviewer is taken by surprise," the bench said.

Appointment criteria

The top court answered a question related to appointment criteria for government jobs referred to it by a three-judge bench in March 2013.

Referring to a 1965 verdict, the three-judge bench had said it was a salutary principle not to permit the state or its instrumentalities to tinker with the 'rules of the game' insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria was concerned.

"Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the 'rules of the game' stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger bench of this court," the three-judge bench had said.

2008 SC ruling

The judges also upheld a 2008 Supreme Court ruling in which it was held that the rules of recruitment processes cannot be changed midway.

The Constitution Bench held that the 2008 judgment was good law and cannot be held to be incorrect just because it did not take into account a 1973 ruling involving the government of Haryana and Subhas Chander Marwaha.

In that case, the court had ruled that candidates who secured the prescribed minimum marks in a public service exam do not have an absolute right to be selected.

Also read: What Justices Nagarathna, Dhulia said about CJI's remarks on Justice Krishna Iyer

(With inputs from agencies)