Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Chiragkumar Dashratlal Patel and another, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondent authorities in removing the requirement of minimum qualifying marks and applying the same to a pending recruitment process where the personal interview was yet to be held. The petitioners had appeared for a preliminary examination for recruitment to the post of Police Constable (Unarmed) in Gujarat. The recruitment process was initiated based on certain rules and an Important Instruction which prescribed minimum qualifying marks in the preliminary examination. Subsequently, by a notification dated 31.03.2018, the respondent authorities amended the Important Instruction and removed the requirement of minimum qualifying marks. The petitioners contended that this amendment should be applied to their recruitment process as well, as the interview was yet to be held. They argued that the action of the respondents was discriminatory, bad in law, and unreasonable. The respondents, represented by the State of Gujarat and the Gujarat Police Recruitment Board, opposed the petition, submitting that the amendment was prospective and would apply only to future recruitments, not to the ongoing process. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the recruitment process is governed by the rules in force at the time of its initiation. The amendment dated 31.03.2018 was not retrospective and could not be applied to a selection process that had already commenced. The court further held that there was no discrimination as the amendment applied uniformly to all candidates in the same batch. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The court also disposed of the connected civil application for stay.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Amendment of Rules - Applicability - The issue was whether the amendment removing minimum qualifying marks could be applied to a pending recruitment process where the preliminary examination was already held. The court held that the amendment would apply only to future recruitments and not to the ongoing selection process, as the rules in force at the time of initiation of the recruitment process would govern the same. (Paras 1-14) B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Discrimination - The petitioners argued that the amendment was discriminatory as it was applied to some candidates but not to them. The court rejected this contention, holding that the amendment was prospective and applied uniformly to all candidates in the same batch of recruitment. (Paras 1-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the removal of minimum qualifying marks by an amendment to the Important Instruction dated 31.03.2018 can be applied to a pending recruitment process where the preliminary examination was already held and the interview was yet to be conducted.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The amendment to the Important Instruction dated 31.03.2018 removing minimum qualifying marks is not applicable to the pending recruitment process for which the preliminary examination was already held. The connected Civil Application for stay also stands disposed of.
Law Points
- Recruitment rules
- Amendment of rules
- Applicability of amended rules to pending selections
- Discrimination
- Article 14
- Article 226
