A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the rules or eligibility criteria governing selection to government jobs cannot be changed midway or after the process of recruitment starts unless the Rules permit the same [Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra delivered the verdict today, after reserving it for judgment in July 2023.

The case before the Court involved 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.

In other words, the question was whether the rules of the 'game' (the job selection process) could be changed midway.

In its verdict today, the Court has stood by the correctness of the earlier Supreme Court ruling in the case of K Manjusree etc. vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), in which it was held that the rules of recruitment processes cannot be changed midway.

The Constitution Bench further held that the K Manjusree judgment is good law and cannot be held to be incorrect merely because it did not take into consideration the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in State of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha and ors.

In the Marwaha case, the Court had held that candidates who secured the prescribed minimum marks in a public service exam do not have an absolute right to be selected. The government may prescribe a score higher than the minimum marks for eligibility in order to select suitable candidates in the interest of maintaining high standards, the Court had added in the Marwaha ruling.

The Constitution Bench's conclusions in today's ruling include the following:

1. The recruitment process begins with calling for applications and ends with filling of vacancies;

2. Eligibility rules cannot be changed midway and it can be done only if extant rules prescribe so;

3. Even the rules for recruitment has to meet the standard of Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (non-discrimination in public employment); Extant rules having statutory force must not be arbitrary;

4. Placement on a select list does not give a candidate an absolute right to employment;

5. The K Manjusree judgment is good law and not incorrect merely because it does not take Marwaha judgment into consideration;

Case Background

The case concerned the recruitment process for filling up thirteen translator posts to the staff of the Rajasthan High Court. The candidates were supposed to attend a written exam, followed by a personal interview.

Twenty one candidates appeared. Of them, only three were declared successful by the High Court (administrative side). It later came to light that the Chief Justice of the High Court had ordered that only those candidates who secured at least 75 per cent marks should be selected for the posts.

Pertinently, this 75 per cent criterion was not mentioned when the recruitment process was first notified by the High Court. Further, it was only upon applying this amended criterion that three candidates were selected and the remaining candidates left out.

Three unsuccessful candidates challenged this outcome by filing a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed in March 2010, prompting them (appellants) to approach the Supreme Court for relief.

The appellants argued that the High Court Chief Justice's decision to impose the minimum 75 per cent marks criterion amounted to "changing the rules of the game after the game is played", which was impermissible.

In support, they cited the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in K Manjusree etc. vs State of Andhra Pradesh.

In a March 20, 2023 order, a three-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Justice RM Lodha (now retired) acknowledged that if the K Manjusree ruling is strictly applied to the present case, then the Rajasthan High Court would be bound to recruit thirteen candidates and not just three.

However, the Bench opined that such a strict application, without any further scrutiny, may not be in the larger public interest or further the goal of establishing an efficient administrative machinery.

In this regard, the Bench referred to the ruling in the case of State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha and ors., which concerned the recruitment of civil judges in Haryana.

In that case, the Haryana government's decision not to recruit any of the candidates who secured minimum marks was challenged. The State explained that its decision was grounded in the interest of maintaining high standards in judicial service. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had initially granted relief to the unsuccessful candidates, but the Supreme Court reversed the High Court's ruling on appeal.

In its judgment (in the Subash Chander case), the Supreme Court opined that candidates securing minimum marks have no automatic legal right to be appointed and it is open to the government to fix a score higher to maintain high standards.

The Bench of Justices Lodha, J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur (all now retired from judicial service) noted that this ruling was not noticed in the Manjusree case.

The matter was thus placed before the then Chief Justice, and eventually referred to a larger Bench for a conclusive ruling.