Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the prospective application of a 5% relaxation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education (Collegiate Branch) Service Rules, 2022. The petitioner, a candidate belonging to a reserved category, sought quashing of the amendment notification dated 25.02.2025 insofar as it gave only prospective effect to the proviso to Rule 25(2), the recruitment notification dated 12.01.2024, the rejection order dated 22.04.2026, and the result dated 21.11.2025, and sought a direction to permit participation in the selection for Assistant Professor (Sahitya) with consequential benefits. The recruitment for Assistant Professor (Sahitya) was initiated by notification dated 12.01.2024. The original Rule 25(2) prescribed that the Commission shall not recommend any candidate who failed to obtain a minimum of 40% marks in each paper and 36% marks in aggregate of written examination. By amendment dated 25.02.2025, Rule 25(2) was substituted with effect from 11.10.2022, changing the qualifying marks to 36% in each paper and 40% in aggregate. The same amendment inserted a proviso providing that the percentage fixed as above shall be relaxed by 5% for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The proviso, however, was not given retrospective effect. The petitioner contended that this created an unfair dichotomy and that had the relaxation been applied retrospectively, he would have been eligible. Respondents submitted that the substitution was clarificatory/correctional, removing an unintelligible formulation, while the relaxation was a fresh substantive benefit, intentionally prospective. They relied on Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, Tej Prakash Pathak v. State of Rajasthan, and Manoj Goyal v. Rajasthan High Court. The High Court found that the recruitment process was on the verge of completion and that applying a subsequently introduced relaxation retrospectively would alter the eligibility framework governing the recruitment at its inception. It held that retrospective substitution of qualifying marks stood on a different footing because it corrected an apparent anomaly; the 5% relaxation, however, conferred an additional substantive benefit which did not form part of the eligibility framework when the process commenced in January 2024. The court reiterated the settled principle that rules of the game cannot ordinarily be changed midway through a selection process and that interference after substantial progress would unsettle accrued rights, cause prejudice to other candidates, and open a Pandora's box. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment Eligibility - Retrospective Application of Relaxation - Rajasthan Sanskrit Education (Collegiate Branch) Service Rules, 2022, Rule 25(2) proviso - The court examined whether the 5% relaxation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates introduced by the 2025 amendment should apply retrospectively to the recruitment notification dated 12.01.2024. It held that the proviso confers a substantive benefit and was consciously made prospective; applying it retrospectively would alter the eligibility framework and unsettle the selection process. Held no retrospective application (Paras 5-6). B) Service Law - Recruitment Process - Rules of the Game Cannot be Changed Midway - Rajasthan Sanskrit Education (Collegiate Branch) Service Rules, 2022, Rule 25(2) - The recruitment process initiated on 12.01.2024 was on the verge of completion. The court relied on Tej Prakash Pathak and Manoj Goyal to hold that interference with an ongoing recruitment process after substantial progress would prejudice other candidates and open a Pandora's box. Held petition dismissed (Paras 5-6). C) Statutory Interpretation - Clarificatory vs Substantive Amendment - Distinction Between Correction of Anomaly and New Benefit - Rajasthan Sanskrit Education (Collegiate Branch) Service Rules, 2022, Rule 25(2) - The substitution of '40% marks in each paper and 36% marks in aggregate' with '36% marks in each paper and 40% marks in aggregate' was correctional and made retrospective, while the 5% relaxation proviso was substantive and prospective. Held comparative argument rejected (Paras 5.1-5.4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the 5% relaxation in minimum eligibility criteria under proviso to Rule 25(2) of Rajasthan Sanskrit Education (Collegiate Branch) Service Rules, 2022, as amended by notification dated 25.02.2025, should be given retrospective effect from 11.10.2022 for the recruitment notification dated 12.01.2024 for the post of Assistant Professor (Sahitya).
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No interference called for. The court held that the 5% relaxation under proviso to Rule 25(2) is substantive benefit and prospective, cannot be applied retrospectively to recruitment initiated on 12.01.2024, especially when process on verge of completion.
Law Points
- Rules of recruitment cannot ordinarily be altered midway
- Retrospective application of substantive benefit not permissible
- Clarificatory/correctional amendment may be retrospective
- 5% relaxation for SC/ST candidates prospective
- Eligibility criteria determined at inception of recruitment
- Interference after substantial progress may unsettle rights and open Pandora's box
- Proviso to Rule 25(2) confers additional substantive benefit
- No retrospective operation absent express or implied intention
