Can government job recruitment rules be changed midway? No, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that government job recruitment rules cannot be changed midway unless specified in the existing procedure.

In Short

• SC rules govt job criteria can't change halfway
• Recruitment rules must follow transparency and fairness
• Select list placement does not guarantee job appointment

The Supreme Court has ruled that government recruitment rules cannot be modified midway unless the existing procedure specifically allows it. The verdict, delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, establishes clarity for government job aspirants who often face unexpected changes in recruitment criteria.

The case originated in the Rajasthan High Court in 2013, when certain rules were modified during the recruitment process for translator positions. Candidates who had already completed a written examination and a viva voce were then informed that only those scoring at least 75 percent would qualify for an appointment.

This ruling is expected to have a significant impact on aspirants applying for similar government job exams, shaping the way recruitment standards are applied and enforced.

This led to concerns about fairness, prompting the question of whether the rules for recruitment can be changed once the process has started.

SC CLARIFIES 'RULES OF THE GAME'

The Supreme Court highlighted that the recruitment process begins with the advertisement and ends once vacancies are filled.

As per the ruling, “Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list cannot be altered midway unless the rules or advertisement explicitly allow it.”

The bench emphasised that any permissible changes must adhere to Article 14 of the Constitution, ensuring fairness and non-arbitrariness.

According to Justice Manoj Misra, any recruitment procedure must be "transparent, non-discriminatory, and rationally linked to the recruitment objectives."

While recruiting authorities can set benchmarks, such standards must be clear from the start of the process. If rules allow setting benchmarks at various stages, these should be communicated before each respective stage to avoid surprises.

The Supreme Court also clarified that placement in the select list doesn’t guarantee an appointment. The state retains the discretion to decide not to fill a position if justified. However, if vacancies do exist, those in the zone of consideration in the select list cannot be arbitrarily denied appointments.

Here are the key takeaways from the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench ruling:

1. The recruitment process officially starts when applications are called for and concludes once vacancies are filled.
2. Eligibility criteria cannot be altered during the process unless explicitly permitted by existing rules.
3. Recruitment rules must adhere to Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (non-discrimination in public employment) of the Constitution. Any established rules with statutory power must be non-arbitrary.
4. Being placed on a select list does not provide a candidate with an absolute right to an appointment.
5. The K Manjusree judgment remains valid law and is not incorrect solely because it does not consider the Marwaha judgment.

Referring to a previous 1965 ruling, the Court reinforced the principle that "rules of the game" should not be changed after the recruitment process has started, especially concerning eligibility criteria. This verdict provides a clear guideline, ensuring that recruitment processes for government positions are conducted in a fair and consistent manner.