 |
|
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment on the rigidity of government job recruitment rules, declaring that modifying these rules midway through the process is prohibited unless explicitly permitted by the existing regulations. This ruling, announced by a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, provides clarity for aspiring government employees who often encounter unexpected changes in recruitment criteria during the selection process.
The case originated in the Rajasthan High Court in 2013 when the recruitment process for translator positions saw a mid-process alteration of rules. After candidates had completed both a written examination and a viva voce, the recruitment authority informed them that only those scoring a minimum of 75 percent would be eligible for appointment. This change sparked concerns about fairness and led to the crucial question: can the rules governing recruitment be altered once the process is underway?
The Supreme Court, addressing this fundamental question, clarified that the recruitment process officially commences with the public advertisement seeking applications and concludes once all vacancies are filled. The Court emphasized that altering the eligibility criteria during this process is strictly forbidden unless the existing rules or advertisement explicitly allows for such changes. Any permitted modifications, however, must be made in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution, ensuring fairness and non-arbitrariness.
Justice Manoj Misra, highlighting the importance of transparent and fair recruitment, underscored that any such procedure must be 'transparent, non-discriminatory, and rationally linked to the recruitment objectives.' While recruiting authorities can establish benchmarks, these standards must be clearly communicated at the outset of the process. If rules allow for setting benchmarks at different stages, these should be communicated to all applicants before each respective stage to prevent any unexpected surprises.
The Supreme Court also clarified that being placed on a select list does not automatically guarantee a candidate an appointment. The state, based on justified reasons, retains the discretion to decide whether or not to fill a specific position. However, if vacancies do exist, those who are in the zone of consideration for the select list cannot be arbitrarily denied appointments. This ruling further strengthens the principle of fairness and prevents arbitrary decisions from jeopardizing the legitimate aspirations of qualified candidates.
This verdict, drawing from the 1965 ruling, reaffirms the principle that 'rules of the game' should not be changed after the recruitment process has started, particularly regarding eligibility criteria. It provides a clear guideline, ensuring that the recruitment process for government positions is conducted in a fair and consistent manner. This judgment will likely have a significant impact on the conduct of government job exams, shaping the way recruitment standards are applied and enforced.
Source: Can government job recruitment rules be changed midway? No, says Supreme Court