Supreme Court says public recruitment rules can't be changed midway 

Why in news?

The Supreme Court Thursday held that rules of public recruitment cannot be changed once the process has begun unless the rules provide so.

Details:

The Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy. Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj Misra ruled that the eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list notified at the commencement of the recruitment process could not be changed midway through the recruitment

If such change was permissible under the extant rules or advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness, noted the Bench.

Authored by Justice Misra, the verdict pronounced that the recruitment process began with the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and filling up of vacancies.

It said the verdict in K. Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512 laid down good law and was not in conflict with the decision in the Subhash Chand Marwah case.

The Apex Court granted liberty to the recruiting bodies to devise an appropriate procedure, as per the extant rules, for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end, provided the procedure was transparent, non-arbitrary, and had a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

It ruled that the extant rules, having statutory force, were binding on the recruiting bodies, both in terms of procedure and eligibility. Where the rules were non-existent or silent. administrative instructions may fill in the gaps.

The Bench said placement in the select list gave no indefeasible right to an appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if the vacancies existed, the State or its instrumentalities could not arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list, it added.

The matter was referred to the Constitution Bench by a three-judge Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others (2013) 4 SCC 540.

In Tej Prakash, the three-judge Bench doubted the correctness of an earlier judgment delivered in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another(2008) 3 SCC 512, where it was held that the selection criteria could not be changed midway during the process as it would amount to 'changing the rules of the game after the game was played,' which was clearly impermissible.