Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court which had struck down a portion of Clause 12.2 of the Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019. The dispute arose from the recruitment process for 65 vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Water Resources Department, advertised on 21 December 2018. At that time, the Assam Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010 were in force. The 2010 Rules provided for assessment based on academic merit, subject knowledge, additional qualifications, and service experience, with viva-voce marks allocated 50% for academic/professional qualification/service experience and 50% for subject knowledge and general bearing. On 1 April 2019, the APSC adopted the 2019 Procedure, which introduced negative marking for wrong answers and capped interview marks at 12.2% of total marks. Clause 12.2 of the 2019 Procedure contained a savings clause stating that pending proceedings under the 2010 Rules would continue and be completed under those rules. The four respondents, who had applied pursuant to the advertisement and appeared in the screening test conducted on 30 June 2019 under the 2010 Rules, challenged Clause 12.2 before the Gauhati High Court. The High Court struck down the savings clause and directed that the 2019 Procedure apply to all pending selections, including the interview segment of the subject recruitment. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, holding that the norms existing on the date of advertisement govern the selection process. Relying on State of Bihar v. Mithilesh Kumar and N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, the Court held that the 2019 Procedure could not apply to the ongoing recruitment advertised on 21.12.2018, especially since the screening test was conducted under the 2010 Rules. The Court noted that applying the 2019 Procedure mid-stream would be unfair as candidates had taken the screening test without negative marking, and their performance in that test (carrying 87.8% weightage) would be determined more by lucky guess than merit. The Court upheld the validity of the savings clause and directed that the selection process be completed under the 2010 Rules.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment Process - Applicability of Rules - The norms existing on the date when the process of selection begins will control the selection and alteration to the norms would not affect the ongoing process unless the new Rules are to be given retrospective effect - Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019, Clause 12.2 - The Supreme Court held that for the recruitment process advertised on 21.12.2018, the 2019 Procedure (effective 01.04.2019) cannot apply, especially when the screening test was conducted under the 2010 Rules (Paras 13-14). B) Service Law - Savings Clause - Validity - The savings clause in Clause 12.2 of the 2019 Procedure, which provided that pending interviews/selections may be continued under the 2010 Rules, was valid and should be given effect - The High Court erred in striking down the savings clause and directing application of the 2019 Procedure to the ongoing selection (Paras 15-16). C) Service Law - Change of Rules Mid-Stream - Fairness - Changing the selection method midway by introducing negative marking and reducing interview weightage would be unfair to candidates who appeared in the screening test under the old rules without negative marking - The performance in the screening test (87.8% weightage) would be determined more by lucky guess than merit if new rules applied (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Gauhati High Court was correct in striking down the savings clause of the 2019 Procedure and directing that the ongoing recruitment process for Assistant Engineer (Civil) be conducted under the new 2019 Procedure instead of the 2010 Rules under which the advertisement was issued and screening test conducted.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 08.08.2019, and directed that the selection process for the 65 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) advertised on 21.12.2018 shall be completed in accordance with the 2010 Rules. The savings clause in Clause 12.2 of the 2019 Procedure was upheld.
Law Points
- Selection norms existing on date of advertisement govern recruitment process
- Amendment of rules during pendency does not affect ongoing process unless retrospective
- Savings clause preserves pending proceedings under old rules
