Supreme Court Rules: Eligibility Criteria for Government Jobs Cannot Change Mid-Recruitment

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that eligibility criteria for government job recruitment cannot be modified after the recruitment process has begun unless such changes are expressly permitted by the established rules. The decision came from a five-judge Constitution Bench, including Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P.S. Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, and was reserved in July 2023. The judgment reinforces the 2008 K Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh case, emphasizing that “changing the rules of the game” after recruitment begins is impermissible.

Background and Legal Precedents

The case revolved around the recruitment process for translator posts in the Rajasthan High Court, where a new criterion required candidates to score at least 75% marks mid-process. Three out of twenty-one candidates passed under the new rule, while others challenged it in court, citing the 2008 K Manjusree precedent that the rules should remain unchanged once the process has started.

The Supreme Court previously ruled in the K Manjusree case that mid-recruitment changes to eligibility criteria are invalid, as they constitute "changing the rules of the game" after the process has commenced. However, another key precedent, the 1973 Subash Chander Marwaha case, allowed authorities to apply higher standards in public interest for maintaining quality in judicial appointments. These precedents contributed to the complexity and importance of the recent judgment.

Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscored several crucial points:

1. Fixed Recruitment Timeline: The recruitment process officially starts with a public advertisement and ends once the vacant posts are filled. Any changes to eligibility criteria must be established from the outset.

2. Consistency in Eligibility: Candidates have a right to expect consistent eligibility requirements throughout the process. Any mid-process change would require justification under the rules in place and must meet Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16 (Non-Discrimination in Public Employment) of the Constitution.

3. Authority and Limitations on Rule Changes: For changes to be valid, they must be explicitly allowed by the governing rules or the recruitment advertisement, ensuring no arbitrary adjustments mid-selection.

4. Select List and Employment Rights: Placement on a select list does not guarantee employment; however, employers cannot arbitrarily deny positions to eligible candidates within the consideration zone when vacancies exist.

Detailed Case Analysis

Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan High Court (2013)

The case was referred to the Constitution Bench by a three-judge bench in 2013 due to uncertainty about whether the "rules of the game" principle could apply universally in all recruitment scenarios. The Bench sought clarification on whether mid-process changes that impose stricter standards can ever be permissible, particularly when such changes aim to maintain high standards in public employment.

The 2008 K Manjusree Ruling

In the 2008 K Manjusree case, the Court invalidated an additional cut-off requirement that had been introduced during the interview stage after the recruitment process was underway. The Supreme Court ruled that this amounted to "changing the rules of the game," which could unfairly disadvantage candidates.

Subash Chander Marwaha (1973)

In contrast, the 1973 Subash Chander Marwaha case permitted a higher cut-off for selecting candidates in judicial services to ensure that only the most qualified candidates were recruited, thereby supporting the notion that recruitment criteria could be adjusted for maintaining public interest. The Court concluded that although this case did not address K Manjusree directly, both cases informed the decision of the recent ruling.

Potential Implications of the Ruling

This ruling affects all public-sector job recruitments across India, promoting fairness, transparency, and consistent standards for candidates. It reinforces that employers must explicitly state all eligibility and evaluation criteria in recruitment advertisements. Public employers now have limited flexibility to alter selection processes once initiated, preventing arbitrary criteria changes that could disadvantage candidates.

The judgment, however, also clarified that public sector employers retain the right to recruit suitable candidates and maintain standards. If a recruitment policy grants them authority to set benchmarks at different stages, they may do so, provided candidates are informed beforehand.

Broader Legal and Social Impact

The decision may also influence other cases in lower courts where candidates claim recruitment processes have unfairly modified criteria. By reaffirming the “rules of the game” doctrine, the Supreme Court aims to establish a uniform guideline for recruitment practices in India. This could particularly impact sectors where candidates have raised concerns over arbitrary recruitment modifications.

For the general public, the judgment highlights that recruitment must be conducted with transparency and fairness, aligning with the constitutional right to equality. The judiciary’s emphasis on statutory compliance signals a step towards creating an equitable public employment landscape where candidates can pursue government job opportunities under transparent, unalterable conditions.

 

The Supreme Court's landmark ruling restricts mid-recruitment changes in eligibility criteria, ensuring fairness in public employment. By upholding the principles in K Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh, the ruling solidifies a legally consistent framework for government job recruitment, preventing arbitrary alterations and protecting candidates’ rights. With this precedent, the Court has reinforced its commitment to fairness, equality, and transparency, fostering greater trust in India’s public sector employment processes.