Supreme Court Constitution Bench Clarifies Recruitment Process Norms: Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway, But Procedure May Be Adapted Within Bounds

Landmark judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court affirms that eligibility criteria fixed at recruitment start cannot be altered, yet state authorities may devise fair procedures to ensure merit-based appointments without conferring indefeasible rights to select list candidates.

In a significant ruling delivered on November 7, 2024, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, delivered an authoritative pronouncement on the legal principles governing recruitment processes in public services. The case, Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, arose from a dispute over the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to impose a 75% cutoff in a translator recruitment exam after the examination was completed, which resulted in fewer candidates being selected than the number of vacancies available.

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the doctrine popularly known as "rules of the game," which prohibits changing recruitment criteria or procedures after the recruitment process has commenced. The Court clarified that the recruitment process begins with the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and concludes with the filling of vacancies.

Key findings of the Court include:

1. Immutability of Eligibility Criteria: Eligibility criteria fixed at the recruitment process’s inception cannot be changed mid-way unless expressly permitted by extant statutory rules or the advertisement itself. Even if such changes are permissible, they must comply with the constitutional mandate of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Distinction Between Eligibility and Selection Procedure: The Court distinguished the right to be placed in a select list from the right to appointment from that list. Placement in the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentalities may, for bona fide reasons, choose not to fill all vacancies, provided the decision is not arbitrary and respects the comparative merit of candidates.

3. Flexibility in Selection Procedure: Subject to the extant rules, recruiting bodies may devise appropriate procedures, such as setting cut-offs for written tests or interviews, to bring the recruitment process to a logical conclusion. Such procedures must be transparent, non-discriminatory, and rationally connected to the objective of selecting the most suitable candidates.

4. Role of Administrative Instructions: Where statutory rules are silent or non-existent, administrative instructions may be used to fill procedural gaps, but these cannot contravene or override statutory rules with binding force.

The case involved a controversy where the Rajasthan High Court amended its recruitment methodology multiple times, altering qualifications and minimum marks requirements. The High Court had upheld these changes as bona fide efforts to maintain service standards. However, unsuccessful candidates challenged this on the ground that changing eligibility criteria or cutoffs after the examination infringed upon their legitimate expectations and violated the principle of fairness.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing precedents including K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) and State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha (1974), held that these decisions deal with different facets of recruitment law—placement in the select list versus appointment from it—and are not in conflict. The Court upheld the principle that while eligibility criteria must remain fixed, the procedure for selection may be adapted within constitutional limits.

Justice Manoj Misra, delivering the judgment, emphasized that public recruitment must be fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary. The State’s discretion to not fill vacancies is recognized, but it must be exercised in good faith and cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a candidate within the zone of consideration.

This ruling reinforces the constitutional safeguards enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment and prohibits arbitrary changes that may prejudice candidates after recruitment processes have begun. The judgment also underscores the balance between protecting candidates’ legitimate expectations and allowing authorities flexibility to maintain high standards of competence in public service.

The Supreme Court has directed the appeals arising from this case to be placed before an appropriate Bench for final decision consistent with the principles laid down in this judgment.

Statutory provisions

Articles 14, 16, 229(2), 309(10) of the Constitution of India; Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (Rules 8 and 10)

---

This news report summarizes the Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court that clarifies the legal principles regarding changes to recruitment eligibility criteria and selection procedures after commencement of the recruitment process, balancing candidates’ rights and administrative discretion under constitutional mandates.

Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2662169