Public employment — Recruitment rules — Retrospective amendment — Weightage for contractual experience — “Rules of the game” — Articles 14 & 16
HEADNOTE (Consolidated, Court-faithful)
Recruitment process — Retrospective amendment altering basis of selection — Impermissibility
Paras 22–29, 34–43
Where recruitment is initiated under statutory rules prescribing selection solely on the basis of marks obtained in a written examination, a subsequent amendment introducing weightage for contractual experience and age relaxation cannot be applied retrospectively after the written examination is conducted and the provisional merit list is published. Retrospective application of such amendment, which alters the basis of preparation of the merit list and eligibility for placement therein, amounts to changing the ‘rules of the game’ after the process has substantially progressed and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The power of the State to amend rules under the proviso to Article 309, though inclusive of retrospective operation, cannot be exercised to disrupt an ongoing recruitment process or to defeat the legitimate expectation of candidates who participated under the unamended rules.
ANALYSIS (What the Supreme Court Precisely Held)
1. Governing rules fixed at the commencement of recruitment (Paras 22–27)
The Court held that the recruitment pursuant to the 2019 Advertisements was governed entirely by the 2019 Rules, which prescribed:
-
eligibility under Rule 8, and
-
selection solely on the marks obtained in the written examination under Rules 12 and 13.
No provision existed for weightage or age relaxation for contractual experience at the time of advertisement.
2. Stage at which amendment was introduced (Paras 9–11, 34)
The Court emphasized that:
-
written examinations were concluded in March 2022,
-
provisional merit lists were published in June/July 2022, and
-
document verification had already taken place.
The recruitment process had therefore not only commenced but had reached its fag end when the 2022 Amendment Rules were notified on 09.11.2022.
3. Nature of the amendment — Alteration of basis of selection (Paras 28–29, 35)
The insertion of Rule 8(5):
-
reduced the weightage of written examination from 100 to 75 marks, and
-
introduced 25 marks for contractual experience, along with age relaxation.
The Court held that this fundamentally altered the criteria for placement in the merit list, and was not a mere procedural or ancillary change.
4. “Rules of the game” doctrine applied (Paras 30–33, 35–38)
Relying on K. Manjusree and the Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak, the Court reaffirmed that:
-
eligibility criteria and benchmarks for selection cannot be changed after the relevant stage is over, and
-
even if rule-making power permits amendment, such change must be effected before commencement of the recruitment process or at least before the concerned stage is reached.
The retrospective application of Rule 8(5) was therefore impermissible.
5. Provisional merit list — Legitimate expectation (Paras 37–40)
The Court rejected the State’s contention that the merit list was only provisional, holding that:
-
the provisional nature was limited to document verification,
-
it did not permit a complete re-casting of the merit list by changing the selection criteria, and
-
candidates who cleared the written examination and were placed in the merit list acquired a legitimate expectation that selection would be finalized under the rules existing at the time of advertisement.
6. Retrospective rule-making under Article 309 — Limits (Paras 36, 41)
While acknowledging that the State has power to amend rules retrospectively under the proviso to Article 309, the Court held that:
-
such power is not unbridled, and
-
it cannot be exercised to take away accrued rights, disrupt an ongoing selection, or operate arbitrarily in violation of Articles 14 and 16.
Executive policies or memoranda (2018 and 2021 Memos) could not override statutory recruitment rules retrospectively.
7. Relief and directions (Paras 42–45)
The Court:
-
set aside the High Court judgment,
-
directed that the recruitment pursuant to the 2019 Advertisements be finalized strictly in accordance with the unamended 2019 Rules, and
-
ordered appointments to be completed within two months, without applying Rule 8(5).
RATIO DECIDENDI
A retrospective amendment to recruitment rules which introduces new weightage or alters the basis of preparation of the merit list cannot be applied to an ongoing recruitment process after the written examination is conducted and the provisional merit list is published, as such application amounts to changing the rules of the game mid-process and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
