SC Reaffirms: Recruitment Rules Cannot Be Changed Midway – Upholds “Rules of the Game” Doctrine
Case Name: Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court
Citation: 2024 INSC 847
Date of Judgment: 7 November 2024
Bench: Chief Justice (Dr.) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra
Held: The Supreme Court held that eligibility criteria prescribed in recruitment rules cannot be changed once the process has begun unless such change is expressly authorized by existing rules. However, recruitment bodies retain the power to devise methods or procedures for selection—so long as they are transparent, non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory, and consistent with the statutory framework. The Court upheld the correctness of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) and clarified that it does not contradict earlier precedents like Subash Chander Marwaha (1973).
Summary: The Rajasthan High Court issued a 2009 notification to recruit Translators, requiring candidates to undergo a written test and interview. After the examination, the Chief Justice mandated a minimum of 75% in the exam for selection. Unsuccessful candidates challenged this move as a violation of the “rules of the game” principle.
The matter, after reaching the Supreme Court, was referred to a Constitution Bench for reconsideration of K. Manjusree.
The Court unanimously ruled:
Rules Cannot Be Changed Midway: Recruitment begins with an advertisement and ends with filling notified vacancies. Articles 14 and 16, along with the doctrine of legitimate expectations, bar changing eligibility norms once the process starts. Candidates must know the selection criteria beforehand.
Procedural Flexibility Allowed: While eligibility cannot be altered, recruitment bodies may frame procedures (e.g., evaluation methods) as long as these remain consistent with existing rules, rational, and non-discriminatory.
Clarifying K. Manjusree: In Manjusree, minimum marks were introduced for interviews after they were conducted, which was held illegal. This is distinct from Marwaha, which concerned the State’s discretion to appoint from an existing select list. Thus, both precedents address different questions and are not contradictory.
No Right to Appointment: Even inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The State can choose not to fill vacancies if guided by bona fide reasons.
Decision: The Constitution Bench unanimously upheld the doctrine against changing recruitment rules midway. It affirmed K. Manjusree as good law, distinguished it from Marwaha, and ruled that while eligibility rules are sacrosanct once recruitment starts, selection procedures may be adapted within the bounds of fairness and statutory compliance. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.