Constitution of India (COI) — Article 14 — Principle of Equality — Rules of Selection Process Cannot Be Changed Arbitrarily After Commencement — Any Change Must Meet Test of Non-Arbitrariness and Reasonableness.

Service Law — Recruitment Process — Introduction of Minimum Marks Benchmark After Start of Selection Process — Validity — Held: The Employer Had Power to Introduce Benchmark — No Prejudice Caused — Decision Taken in Larger Public Interest — Competence and High Standards in Selection Justified (Para 44, 45, 46).

Administrative Law — Legitimate Expectation — Change of Rules Midway Through Selection — Permissibility — Where Extant Rules or Advertisement Permit Changes, They Must Be Transparent, Non-Arbitrary, and Rationally Connected to Selection Objective — Court Cannot Interfere When Larger Public Interest is Established (Para 42, 47).

(a) The Court ruled that the selection committee had the authority to introduce the minimum marks benchmark. (b) The change was justified in larger public interest and to maintain high standards of competence.

Nature of Litigation: Writ petitions challenging the introduction of a minimum marks benchmark during the selection process for Managing Directors in cooperative sugar factories.

Relief Sought: Petitioners sought to modify the list of candidates eligible for interviews and declare the results of the written examination.

Reason for Filing: Petitioners claimed the introduction of a minimum 27-mark benchmark in the written examination was an arbitrary change in the selection process.

What Was Decided Until Now: Petitioners' claims were dismissed at the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court and matters related to the screening test were pending before the Supreme Court.

Issues: (a) Whether the introduction of a new benchmark after the commencement of the selection process was legally permissible. (b) Whether the change violated principles of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions/Arguments: (a) Petitioners argued that the mid-process introduction of a minimum benchmark was contrary to the established rules and deprived them of a fair chance. (b) Respondents contended that the introduction of the benchmark was necessary to ensure the selection of competent and qualified candidates for a highly responsible post.

Ratio: The introduction of a minimum benchmark did not amount to changing the “rules of the game” since it was in line with the objective of selecting the best candidates and did not cause prejudice to the petitioners (Para 45, 46, 48).

Subjects: Minimum Marks Benchmark — Selection Process — Public Interest — High Standards — Non-Arbitrariness — Service Law — Recruitment