Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Junior Training Officer at Government ITI College, Dhulkhed, challenged the endorsement issued by respondent No.3 (General Manager (HRD) of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited) rejecting her candidature for the posts of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) under both HK quota and non-HK quota. The respondent-Corporation had issued a recruitment notification on 03-08-2017. The petitioner applied, was found eligible, and appeared for the written examination on 21-01-2018. She also appeared for the Kannada language test on 28-01-2018, scoring 71 marks. However, the written test was cancelled via corrigendum on 23-06-2018. After nearly five years, a re-examination was conducted on 18-02-2024 and 19-02-2024, in which the petitioner scored 36 out of 150 in the Kannada language test. The final score list did not indicate pass/fail status. The petitioner's name appeared in the additional list for document verification on 21-08-2024. During verification, respondent No.3 endorsed that she had failed the Kannada language test, leading to rejection. The petitioner contended that no minimum qualifying marks for the Kannada language test were prescribed in the recruitment notification or rules, and the introduction of a 50-mark threshold post-examination was arbitrary. The respondents argued that the Kannada language test was an essential eligibility criterion and that the petitioner's failure to secure 50 marks disqualified her. The court, relying on K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court (2024 INSC 847), held that fixing minimum qualifying marks after the examination process had commenced, without prior notification, violates principles of transparency and fairness. The court distinguished between essential qualifications and procedural shortlisting, noting that the respondents had erroneously treated the Kannada language test as a procedural measure. The court quashed the impugned endorsements and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature afresh, without applying the unnotified qualifying marks for the Kannada language test, if she is otherwise eligible.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Eligibility Criteria - Fixation of Minimum Qualifying Marks - The court examined whether the respondent-Corporation could prescribe minimum qualifying marks for the Kannada language test after the examination process had commenced, without prior notification. The court held that such post-examination fixation of eligibility criteria is impermissible and violates the principles of transparency and fairness as laid down in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512. (Paras 8-10) B) Service Law - Recruitment - Change of Rules Mid-Process - The court considered the principle that 'rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has been played.' Relying on Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court (2024 INSC 847), the court held that introducing new qualifying criteria mid-process is contrary to law and undermines the integrity of the selection process. (Paras 9-10) C) Service Law - Recruitment - Essential Qualification vs. Procedural Shortlisting - The court distinguished between essential qualifications for employment (first category) and procedural shortlisting measures (second category) as delineated in Tej Prakash Pathak. The court found that the Kannada language test was an essential eligibility criterion, and the respondents erroneously treated it as a procedural shortlisting measure, thereby violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. (Paras 12-16) D) Service Law - Recruitment - Pre-notified Rules - The court emphasized that recruitment processes must adhere to pre-notified rules, and any deviation post facto is legally unsustainable. The absence of prior notification regarding the qualifying threshold of 50 marks rendered the subsequent application of this criterion arbitrary and unjust. (Paras 8-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for the Kannada language test after the examination process had commenced, without prior notification, is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned endorsements (Annexure-Q and Q1), and directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner afresh for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and Junior Engineer (Mechanical) pursuant to the notification dated 03-08-2017, without applying the unnotified qualifying marks for the Kannada language test, if she is otherwise eligible.
Law Points
- Eligibility criteria cannot be altered after commencement of selection process
- Minimum qualifying marks must be pre-notified
- Recruitment process must adhere to principles of transparency and fairness
- Distinction between essential qualifications and procedural shortlisting
