Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a recruitment process initiated by the Rajasthan High Court in 2009 for 13 posts of Translators. The applicable rules, as amended in 2004 and 2009, prescribed a test in English and Hindi translation but did not specify any minimum qualifying marks. An examination was held on 19 December 2009, and 21 candidates appeared. On 20 February 2010, the Chief Justice of the High Court ordered that only candidates securing a minimum of 75% marks would be selected. Consequently, only three candidates were declared successful. Unsuccessful candidates challenged this decision before the High Court, arguing that fixing a cut-off after the examination amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no indefeasible right accrues from mere placement in a select list and that the employer could fix a higher benchmark. On appeal, the Supreme Court, by a three-judge bench, doubted the correctness of the decision in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512, which held that altering selection criteria mid-process is impermissible, and referred the matter to a larger bench. The larger bench examined whether the principle against changing the rules of the game applies to selection procedures, including the prescription of minimum cut-off marks. The court analyzed various precedents, including Subash Chander Marwaha v. State of Haryana (1974) 3 SCC 220, and concluded that the principle applies equally to eligibility criteria and selection procedures. The court held that once the recruitment process has commenced, the employer cannot introduce new requirements such as minimum qualifying marks that were not part of the original rules. Such action violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as it is arbitrary and denies equal opportunity to candidates who applied based on the existing rules. The court overruled the High Court's decision and directed that the selection be conducted afresh in accordance with the rules as they stood at the time of the notification, without the 75% cut-off. The court also clarified that the decision in K. Manjusree is correct and does not require reconsideration.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Rules of the Game - Alteration of Selection Procedure - The principle that eligibility criteria cannot be changed after commencement of recruitment applies equally to selection procedure, including prescription of minimum cut-off marks - Fixing a minimum of 75% marks after the examination was held, when no such requirement existed in the Rules, amounts to changing the rules of the game midstream and is impermissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Held that the decision in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. is correct and does not require reconsideration (Paras 1-44). B) Service Law - Recruitment - Minimum Qualifying Marks - Employer's Discretion - An employer cannot, after the selection process has begun, introduce a new requirement of minimum qualifying marks not provided in the recruitment rules - Such action is arbitrary and violates the right to equality - The High Court's decision to select only candidates securing 75% marks, when the Rules did not prescribe any such cut-off, was set aside (Paras 2-44). C) Service Law - Recruitment - Retrospective Operation - The power to make rules retrospectively does not permit changing the selection criteria after the process has commenced - Any such change must be prospective and cannot affect candidates who have already applied or appeared in the examination - Held that the principle in Subash Chander Marwaha does not permit alteration of selection procedure mid-process (Paras 10-44).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the principle that the 'rules of the game' cannot be altered after the commencement of the recruitment process applies to the procedure for selection, including the prescription of minimum cut-off marks, and whether the decision in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. was correctly decided in light of Subash Chander Marwaha v. State of Haryana.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 11 March 2011, and directed that the selection process for the 13 posts of Translators be conducted afresh in accordance with the rules as they stood at the time of the notification dated 17 September 2009, without the requirement of 75% minimum marks. The court held that the decision in K. Manjusree is correct and does not require reconsideration.
Law Points
- Rules of the game cannot be changed after commencement of recruitment process
- distinction between eligibility criteria and selection procedure
- retrospective alteration of selection criteria violates Article 14 and 16
- employer cannot fix minimum cut-off marks after examination without prior rule
