Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a recruitment process for Supervisor Instructor Class III posts in Gujarat, where the Departmental Selection Committee, following state government guidance, reduced the qualifying marks for horizontal reservation categories after the results were published. This was done to fill vacancies in reserved seats for females, ex-servicemen, and physically handicapped candidates, as the original cut-off marks had left these seats unfilled. The appellants, who would have been selected under the original criteria, challenged this reduction in the High Court. The Single Judge allowed their writ petitions, but the Division Bench reversed this decision, holding that the appellants had no vested right and the selection committee had adequate power to make such changes. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard arguments from the appellants, state respondents, and private respondents. The appellants contended that the selection committee lacked power to reduce cut-off marks post-result, that changing rules after the game began was arbitrary, and that the state could not usurp the committee's power. They cited precedents including Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court and Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India. The respondents argued that the power was available, the objective was reasonable, and the appellants had no vested right to appointment. The court analyzed the advertisement terms, which clearly outlined the horizontal reservation mechanism and the selection committee's power to amend or cancel the advertisement before or during the process, but not after result publication. It found that the reduction of marks after the result was declared effectively treated horizontal reservation as vertical, contrary to the advertisement, and was done without amending the advertisement. The court held that the rules of recruitment cannot be changed after the process has concluded, and such arbitrary exercise of power is impermissible. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the Division Bench's decision and restoring the Single Judge's order, thereby invalidating the post-result reduction of qualifying marks.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Recruitment Rules - Change After Result Publication - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court considered a challenge to the reduction of qualifying marks for horizontal reservation categories after result publication in a recruitment process. The court held that the rules of the game cannot be changed after it has begun, and the selection committee's power to amend the advertisement is limited to before or during the process, not after result declaration. The reduction was arbitrary and impermissible as it overturned the original advertisement terms without amendment. (Paras 12, 15, 19) B) Constitutional Law - Reservation Policy - Horizontal vs Vertical Reservation - Not mentioned - The court examined the distinction between horizontal and vertical reservation in the context of recruitment. It found that the state government and selection committee erroneously treated horizontal reservation as vertical reservation by reducing cut-off marks post-result to fill vacancies, contrary to the advertisement which specified that unfilled horizontal reservation seats would be filled by other eligible candidates. This misapplication of reservation policy was held invalid. (Paras 14-15) C) Judicial Review - Arbitrary Exercise of Power - Selection Committee Authority - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court scrutinized the arbitrary exercise of power by the selection committee and state government in unilaterally reducing qualifying marks after the result was published. The court emphasized that such post-facto changes without amending the advertisement and after the process had concluded were not permissible, upholding the principle that recruitment rules must be applied consistently from start to finish. (Paras 15, 19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Departmental Selection Committee and State Government could validly reduce the qualifying marks for horizontal reservation categories after the publication of results, thereby altering the recruitment rules post-facto
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the Division Bench's decision, and restored the Single Judge's order, invalidating the post-result reduction of qualifying marks
Law Points
- Rules of recruitment cannot be changed after the game has begun
- horizontal reservation must be treated as per advertisement terms
- selection committee's power to amend advertisement is limited to before or during process
- not after result publication
- arbitrary exercise of power is impermissible
