TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK vs RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 2024
Case Title and Citation: Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court 2024 INSC 847 (7 November 2024)
Factual Background
The Rajasthan High Court issued a notification on September 17, 2009, soliciting applications for the posts of Translators. The recruitment was governed by ‘The Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules 2002’. The method of selection involved a written test followed by a personal interview. After the written examination was conducted on December 19, 2009, and its result was declared on February 20, 2010, the Chief Justice of the High Court intervened. The Chief Justice directed that only candidates who obtained a minimum of 75% marks would be considered successful for the posts. Since only three out of twenty-one candidates secured this cutoff, only those three were declared successful. Unsuccessful candidates challenged this decision before the High Court, asserting that establishing a new cutoff percentage after the examination constituted “changing the rules of the game after the game is played”. The High Court dismissed the challenge, reasoning that an employer is entitled to set a higher benchmark to ensure the appointment of a suitable candidate. The matter then proceeded to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
- Whether the selection criteria, specifically the eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, can be changed after the commencement of the recruitment process.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s prior decision in K. Manjusree was correctly decided, or if it conflicts with the precedent set in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Constitution Bench (five judges) of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the principle that the eligibility criteria governing recruitment cannot be altered once the process begins, unless explicitly permitted by existing rules. The Court upheld the previous ruling in K. Manjusree and mandated that the matter be returned to an appropriate Bench for final decision based on the answers rendered.
Reason for the Decision
The Court’s rationale was grounded in the principles of non-arbitrariness and fairness required by the Constitution in public employment:
- Prohibition against Changing Rules Mid-Process (Eligibility): The doctrine preventing mid-process changes to recruitment rules is based on the rule against arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and the doctrine of legitimate expectations. Candidates have a legitimate expectation that the selection will be based on predetermined, transparent criteria, and the State must act predictably. Changing the eligibility criteria after the process commences would violate the guarantee of equal opportunity provided by Article 16. The Court confirmed that the recruitment process begins with the issuance of the advertisement and concludes when the notified vacancies are filled.
- Fixing of Cutoffs: If a recruiting body intends to prescribe a cutoff or benchmark, it must be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process. Fixing a minimum score after the examination or interview is completed, as was done in this case (75% minimum marks) and in K. Manjusree, is illegal. This post-facto change denies the evaluator the opportunity to modulate marks appropriately and violates transparency.
- Distinction between K. Manjusree and Marwaha: The Court clarified that K. Manjusree (which dealt with the change of criteria for placement in the select list) and Subash Chander Marwaha (which dealt with the decision to appoint from the already existing select list) address different issues. Marwaha confirmed that the State may choose not to fill all vacancies for bona fide reasons of administrative policy, even if candidates meet minimum eligibility criteria. Conversely, K. Manjusree prohibits arbitrary changes that affect a candidate’s right to be placed in that list.
- Flexibility in Procedure: While eligibility criteria are strict, the prohibition does not apply with equal rigor to the selection procedure. Recruiting bodies can devise appropriate, rational procedures (like shortlisting mechanisms) during the process, provided those procedures do not violate existing statutory rules, are transparent, and are non-arbitrary. Where rules are silent, administrative instructions can fill the gaps, but they cannot violate existing statutory rules.
- No Indefeasible Right to Appointment: Placement in the select list does not grant a candidate an absolute right to be appointed, even if vacancies are available. However, the State cannot arbitrarily deny appointment and must justify the decision not to fill vacancies with bona fide reasons.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court affirmed that the eligibility criteria for public employment must be fixed before the recruitment process commences and cannot be altered afterward, as this violates constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness. The judgment establishes that the act of retroactively imposing a high cutoff mark after the examination (as the Rajasthan High Court did) is illegal because it amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game is played. The ruling clarifies the legal boundary between setting eligibility standards (which must be static) and devising flexible selection procedures (which can be introduced mid-process if justified and non-arbitrary).
