CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 2636 OF 2013
TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK & ORS. …. APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS. …. RESPONDANT (S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2635 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2636 OF 2013
JUDGEMENT DATE: 7 NOVEMBER 2024
Presented by: Prabhat Kumar
Asian law college
Introduction:
The case concerns the imposition of a 75% cutoff for the recruitment for the post of translators in the Rajasthan High Court after the recruitment process had already begun. The main question is whether the introduction of a retrospective cutoff was permissible and whether such decision violates the principle of Article 14 and Article 16 of Indian Constitution.
This court case Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. V Rajasthan High Court & Ors. Concentrates on selection criteria modifications made within a continuing recruitment procedure. The court emphasizes that modification of recruitment rules is prohibited once a selection process starts to maintain fair and transparent public employment procedures
Facts of the case:
- On 17 September 2009, the Rajasthan High Court issued notification of recruitment for the post of translator.
- The notification was released for 13 vacant translator post.
- No requirement for minimum qualification marks were required for selection.
- The then Chief Justice of High Court Mr. Jagdish Bhalla imposed a new requirement that candidate must score 75% or above in the examination to be selected.
- This 75% requirement was introduced after the examination was taken.
- Ony 3 candidates were selected out of 21 candidates because of this requirement.
- The unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition in Rajasthan High Court on the ground that it amounts to “changing the rules of the game after the game is played” .
- The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition in 2010.
- The candidates filed a petition in Supreme Court in 2011.
Issues of the case:
- Whether the introduction of 75% cutoff after the recruitment process had commenced was permissible in law.
- Whether the retrospective imposition of this cutoff violates the Right to Equality (Article 14) and Right against Indiscrimination (article 16) under the Constitution.
- Whether the decision of Rajasthan High Court to impose a retrospective cutoff was backed by valid statutory authorisation.
- Can the rules of game be changed after the game is played.
Contentions Supporting Petitioners:
- Violation of Fairness: The candidates build their applications based upon the requirements listed in the advertisement. The addition of new evaluation standards after the examination period threatens the fairness of the assessment process.
- Legitimate Expectation: Candidates had a legitimate expectation that the selection process would adhere to the initially stated criteria. Altering these criteria without prior notice violates this expectation.
- Arbitrariness: Changing selection criteria after the process has begun can lead to arbitrary decisions, which are prohibited under Article 14 of the constitution.
Contentions Supporting Respondents:
- Ensuring Meritocracy: The establishment of high standards during recruitment allows public service organizations to select only highly qualified applicants who preserve service quality.
- Administrative Discretion: The appointing authority has the discretion to set selection criteria to ensure the suitability of candidates for the position.
- No Vested Right: Candidates do not have a vested right to selection merely by appearing for the examination; the authority can set qualifying standards to ensure competence.
Rationale of the case:
The petitioners argued that the retrospective introduction of the 75% cutoff violated the principle of fairness by changing the recruitment criteria after the process had started, which they argued was impermissible under K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008). The petitioners further contended that the Chief Justice’s decision was not authorized by valid statutes and violated the Right to Equality under Article 14.
The Rajasthan High Court, however, argued that strictly following the Manjusree decision would compel the hiring of candidates who scored better relative to others but overall had low scores. They cited State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha (1973), which allows higher cutoff marks to ensure high standards in recruitment.
The Supreme Court of India, in a majority decision delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and other justices, upheld the principle that recruitment procedures, once initiated, cannot be altered to the detriment of the applicants’ legitimate expectations. The Court reinforced the doctrine that changing the “rules of the game” post the commencement of the recruitment process is impermissible, ensuring that candidates are evaluated based on the criteria established at the outset.
The Supreme Court In this case arrived at the following conclusions:
. The recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and the filling of vacancies.
2. Eligibility criteria, once notified, cannot be changed midway unless explicitly permitted by the extant rules or advertisement.
3. If such changes are permissible, they must meet the standards of Article 14 of the Constitution, ensuring they are not arbitrary.
4. The decision in K. Manjusree (2008) remains good law and is not in conflict with Subhash Chander Marwaha (1973).
5. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant rules, may devise an appropriate procedure for completing the recruitment process, provided the procedure is transparent, non-arbitrary, and rational.
6. Statutory rules governing the process are binding on the recruiting bodies, and administrative instructions may be used to fill any gaps where rules are silent.
7. While placement in the select list does not give an indefeasible right to an appointment, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to candidates within the zone of consideration, provided vacancies exist.
The judgment further clarified that the appointing authority, in the absence of specific rules, can devise procedures for selection and set benchmarks for different stages of recruitment. Any benchmarks set must be made clear before the commencement of the recruitment process. If the rules or advertisement empower the appointing authority to set benchmarks, they may do so at any time before the respective stage, provided it does not surprise the candidates or evaluators.
Defect of law:
The major defect was that there was no rule to stop the arbitrariness of the recruitment committee.
The power to apply the retrospective nature of law in the hands of recruiting committee gave immense power to them and this power needs to be controlled to maintain and conduct a fair recruitment and show transparency in the process of recruitment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court serves as a definitive reinforcement of the principles of fairness and equality in public service recruitment. By unequivocally stating that changing eligibility criteria midprocess is impermissible, the Court ensures that all candidates are evaluated on a level playing field, based on the standards initially set. This decision not only upholds the constitutional safeguards under Articles 14 and 16 but also fortifies the integrity and transparency of public recruitment processes, setting a robust precedent for future cases.
Moving forward, public institutions must rigorously adhere to established recruitment protocols, and any necessary procedural modifications must be instituted proactively and transparently, safeguarding the legitimate expectations of all candidates and maintaining the sanctity of public service appointments.
The Tej Prakash Pathak case shows the need for both fairness and transparency in public recruitment. All candidates must be judged by the same clear standards from start to finish. These rules should not change once the process begins. When public bodies follow this approach, people trust the system more. It also upholds equality, prevents discrimination, and protects the basic rights of all applicants.