The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fundamental legal principle that “rules of the game cannot be changed midway” and, in doing so, set aside a judgment of the Patna High Court which had upheld an amendment made by the State Government to the recruitment rules for Assistant Engineers under the Bihar Public Service Commission. A bench of the Supreme Court allowed appeals filed by candidates who appeared in the recruitment examination conducted by the BPSC for the post of Assistant Engineer, where the selection process originally contemplated that the written examination alone would determine eligibility and merit. After the written examination had been conducted and the provisional merit list published, the State Government amended the recruitment rules to introduce weightage for contractual experience and age relaxation, and retrospectively applied these amendments to the process already underway. This mid-process change adversely affected those candidates who had previously qualified under the original criteria. The affected candidates challenged the amendment, but the Patna High Court dismissed their challenge, treating the amendment as a policy decision and holding that inclusion in a provisional merit list did not confer a vested right.
In setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court observed that introducing a new criterion at an advanced stage in the recruitment process amounted to changing the rules after candidates had already competed under a different set of rules. The judgment underscored the established legal doctrine that once a recruitment process has commenced, the essential eligibility criteria and rules of selection cannot be altered to the detriment of candidates participating under the original framework. Drawing on established precedents, the Court noted that while the State possesses the authority to frame and amend recruitment rules, such changes cannot be made to operate retrospectively at a stage when candidates have already competed based on the originally advertised criteria. Judicial pronouncements have consistently emphasised that the “rules of the game” governing recruitment commence with the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and conclude when vacancies are filled, and that any modification to the eligibility criteria must, therefore, be made prior to or in accordance with the extant rules and not during an ongoing process. As set out by the Supreme Court, a recruiting authority in the absence of express empowering provisions may devise procedures for recruitment, including setting benchmarks for various stages; however, any such benchmarks or criteria must be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process so that neither candidates nor evaluators are taken by surprise. Changes affecting eligibility or evaluation after the process has begun, particularly where they operate to the disadvantage of candidates who have acted in conformity with the original framework, violate the principles of fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness intrinsic to public employment recruitment processes. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and directed that the recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer be finalised strictly in accordance with the unamended 2019 rules, based solely on marks obtained in the written examination. This decision reaffirms that retroactive changes to selection criteria, introduced after candidates have competed under an established framework, are impermissible, and that administrative authorities must respect the integrity of the recruitment process once it is underway.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.