The Supreme Court of India ruled on Thursday that the rules governing recruitment for public services can’t be altered midway through the selection process unless explicitly allowed by relevant regulations.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P.S. Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra delivered this important verdict.
The court emphasized that the eligibility criteria established at the beginning of the recruitment process must remain unchanged unless the existing rules or the initial advertisement permit such changes.
This ensures fairness and transparency in the recruitment process, which is essential for maintaining public trust.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that if a change is permissible under the current rules or the initial advertisement, it must comply with Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. Any modification must also satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness to ensure that the process remains fair and just.
The case arose from the issue of whether the recruitment rules could be changed after the selection process had commenced. It was referred to a 5-judge bench after a 3-judge bench reviewed the case, titled Tej Prakash Pathak and Others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others.
In its deliberations, the Supreme Court referenced a previous decision in K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, noting concerns about the principles established in that case, which appeared to conflict with an earlier ruling in State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha.
This highlights the court’s careful consideration of legal precedents when addressing issues of public policy and administrative procedures.
The detailed judgment is yet to be released, but the implications of this ruling are significant. It reinforces the importance of adhering to established rules in recruitment processes, thereby safeguarding the rights of candidates and ensuring that the selection criteria are consistently applied.
This decision not only upholds the integrity of public service recruitment but also reflects the court’s commitment to constitutional principles.
As this case unfolds, it will likely set important precedents for future recruitment processes in public services, ensuring that changes are made transparently and fairly, in line with established regulations.
The court’s insistence on the stability of recruitment rules serves as a reminder of the need for accountability and predictability in government hiring practices.
