Altering Rules on Appointment to Public Posts | Judgement Pronouncement: Rules cannot be changed mid-way, holds SC
Altering Rules on Appointment to Public PostsJudges: D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, P.S. Narasimha J, Pankaj Mithal J, Manoj Misra J
Today, five Supreme Court judges, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, unanimously held that the rules governing a public recruitment process cannot be changed mid-way. Justice Manoj Misra authored and pronounced the judgement on behalf of the bench. This is the first time Justice Misra has authored a Constitution Bench decision since his elevation to the top court in February 2023.
The case emerged from pleas challenging modifications made in 2009 to the recruitment process for translators at the Rajasthan High Court. In 2013, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench, stating that an “authoritative pronouncement” was needed to clarify if rules could be changed “particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection.”
Background
On September 17, 2009, the Rajasthan High Court issued a notification under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (the Rules) for the recruitment of 13 translators. The Rules required candidates to appear for a written examination and a personal interview. However, after the completion of these two steps, then Chief Justice of the Rajasthan HC Jagadish Bhalla, decided that candidates must receive 75% or above in their examination to be selected for the post. As a result, only three of the 21 candidates were selected.
The unsuccessful candidates approached the Rajasthan High Court in 2010, and then the Supreme Court in 2011. They argued that ‘changing the rules of the game after the game was played’ was impermissible and violated their right to equality and non-discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution.
A 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the case to a larger bench in 2011. The Order stated that the larger bench must clarify what rules can and cannot be changed during the recruitment process for public posts.
A 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by Justice Indira Banerjee heard the case in August 2022 and listed it for arguments in September 2022. However, the bench decided to adjourn the case to a later date because of the retirements of Justices Banerjee and Hemanth Gupta.
Similar other cases relating to public appointments from six other states were tagged together to this case and were assigned to a Constitution Bench.
On June 26 2023, this batch of petitions was assigned to a new 5-Judge Constitution Bench. The new Bench consists of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, P.S. Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra. The Bench began hearing the petitions on July 12, 2023.
Rules need to be pre-determined; any change must satisfy the principle of non-arbitrariness
The bench held that the recruitment process for a public post commences when the advertisement is published. The eligibility criteria for the selection process must be notified at the commencement stage and cannot be changed mid-way, unless the rules mentioned in the advertisement permit such a change. Furthermore, any such change would be valid only if it passed the test of non-arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The recruiting authority, the bench said, could exercise discretion to ensure that the most suitable candidates are employed by them. However, they had to follow the framework of rules and statutes regulating the recruitment, and principles enshrined in the Constitution. In the absence of such rules, the recruiting authority could devise a procedure and set benchmarks for different stages of the process. However, any such benchmarks had to be stipulated before the commencement of that stage of the recruitment process.
The decisions in Manjushree and Subhash Chander Marwaha are not in conflict
In K. Manjusree v State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), the Court had invalidated the subsequent introduction of cut-off marks for the interview round, which was not originally stipulated in the notification. They had held that this amounted to “changing the rules of the game” mid-way.
Respondents in the case had argued that the decision in Manjusree contradicted the view in State of Haryana v Subhash Chander Marwaha (1973), which allowed state governments to set higher cut-offs “in the interest of maintaining high standards.”
Today, the five-judge bench clarified that the two judgements were not in conflict with each other, as they dealt with questions concerning different stages of a selection process. While Subash Chander Marwaha dealt with the right to be appointed from the select list, Manjusree dealt with the right to be placed in the select list.