Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the State of Bihar's decision to change the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Instructor (Electronics) after the selection process had begun. The Respondent, Mithilesh Kumar, applied for the position following an advertisement by the Bihar Public Service Commission (B.P.S.C.) and was declared successful in the interview. However, shortly after the interview, the Empowered Committee decided to use NGOs for training instead of appointing instructors. Despite this, the B.P.S.C. recommended the Respondent for appointment, but the Director of Social Welfare rejected his representation. The Respondent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the Patna High Court, directing his appointment. The State appealed, arguing that the B.P.S.C. should not have recommended the Respondent after the policy change. The court analyzed the legal principles surrounding recruitment and selection processes, emphasizing that changes in norms should not affect candidates selected under the previous rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the High Court's decision, stating that the Respondent's claim was valid as the change in policy occurred after the selection process had begun.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Right to Appointment - Change in Recruitment Norms - Full Act Name Not Mentioned - The court held that the norms of recruitment existing at the time of selection should govern the appointment process, and any subsequent changes could not affect those already selected. The Respondent's claim was upheld as the change in policy occurred after the selection process had commenced (Paras 14-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the change in recruitment norms after the selection process had begun could affect the Respondent's right to appointment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the High Court's order for the appointment of the Respondent as Assistant Instructor, stating that changes in recruitment norms could not affect those selected under the previous rules.
Law Points
- Right to appointment
- selection process
- change in recruitment norms
- service jurisprudence
- indefeasible right
