Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2634, 2635 and 2636 of 2013 (Supreme Court of India, decided on 7 November 2024)

Citation – Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2634, 2635 and 2636 of 2013 decided on 7 November 2024 (SC)

ISSUE

The Constitution Bench was asked to rule on whether the rules on the method and manner of selection can be changed once the process of recruitment has been initiated.

The reference was mainly made because of the fact that a three-Judge Bench had doubted the correctness of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 without considering State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220.

The principle issues were :

1. Eligibility/criteria for being placed in the select list, and

2. The decision whether to appoint candidates who are already in the select list.

The Constitution Bench was also asked to reconsider the relationship between two earlier judgements :

1. K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2. Subash Chander Marwaha v. State of J&K

RULE

A. Recruitment begins with advertisement.

Relevant paragraph : Para 13

The court held that the recruitment process commences with the issuance of the advertisement in inviting applications and continues until the notified vacancies are filled.

Ratio :

The recruitment process begins with the advertisement and ends with the filling up of the notified vacancies.

This is significant because the prohibition against changing the rules operates throughout the recruitment process.

B. Eligibility criteria cannot ordinarily be changed midway

Relevant paragraphs : Paras 5-8

The court recognised two broad categories of recruitment rules :

1. Eligibility criteria, which determines who can participate or be considered.

2. Selection procedure, which determines how eligible candidates are evaluated and selected.

The court reaffirm that eligibility conditions ordinarily cannot be altered after commencement of recruitment because candidates may have decided whether to apply based on the conditions originally advertised.

Ratio:

The principle is founded upon Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

ANALYSIS

The central reasoning of the Supreme Court can be understood through the relationship between article 14, article 16, and fairness in public recruitment.

The court reasoning was not that recruitment. Authorities have no discretion, rather, the court drew a line between legitimate procedural discretion and arbitrary alteration of selection conditions.

When a recruitment advertisement is issued, candidates decide whether to participate based on the conditions communicated to them. They enter the process with an expectation that the selection will be conducted according to the applicable framework.

For example, suppose an advertisement provides that candidates will be selected on the basis of a written examination and interview. After the examination has been conducted, the authority cannot ordinarily announce a new minimum qualifying requirement and apply it retro respectively to determine who qualifies.

That would effectively alter the conditions after candidates have already played the relevant part of the “game.”

This is why the court connected the doctrine with article 14 prohibition against arbitrariness.

CONCLUSION

The Constitution Bench ultimately answered the reference by laying down the following principles :

Ratio Decidendi

1. Recruitment process

The recruitment process begins with the issuance of the advertisement and ends with the filling of the notified vacancies. Para 42(1).

2. No midstream alteration of eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the Select List, once notified, cannot ordinarily be changed midway unless the governing rules or a valid advertisement permit such change. Even then, the change must satisfy Article 14. Para 42(2).

I fully agree with the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., as the decision protects the rights of candidates and ensures fairness in the recruitment process. It was rightly decided that the eligibility criteria and rules of recruitment cannot ordinarily be changed once the recruitment process has commenced . It was also rightly observed that the recruiting authority may prescribe suitable benchmarks, but such criteria must be fixed at the proper stage and in accordance with the applicable rules. The court also correctly held that mere inclusion in the select list does not give a candidate an absolute right to appointment, but the authority cannot deny appointment arbitrarily. The decision therefore ensures a fair and transparent recruitment process.