Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court held that the selection process for Fire Operator posts in Delhi Fire Service was vitiated by repeated, arbitrary changes in selection criteria after the commencement of recruitment. It directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to redraw the merit list strictly per the original advertisement, treating Physical Endurance Test (PET) and Driving Skill Test (DST) as qualifying only, with the written test (200 marks) alone determining merit.
However, given the passage of eight years since appointments, existing appointees would not be disturbed. Petitioners found eligible under the revised merit list will be appointed with notional seniority below existing appointees, without arrears of pay.
Facts
The Delhi Fire Service requested DSSSB in 2013 to fill 803 posts of Fire Operators, later revised to 841, requiring matriculation and a heavy vehicle license, with PET, DST, and a written test.
The advertisement dated 27.01.2014 prescribed:
- 200 marks for a written test (five subjects),
- PET and DST as qualifying only.
The written test was held on 31.08.2014. Initially, PET was notified as qualifying (minimum 33% in three events), and DST was also to be qualifying.
Subsequently:
- DSSSB scaled down written test marks to 100 and scaled up PET marks from 30 to 100,
- DST was changed from qualifying to a 100-mark evaluation (20 marks theory, 80 marks practical),
- These changes were notified after the written test and PET were conducted.
Aggrieved candidates challenged the midway changes and sought adherence to the original advertisement criteria.
Issues
- Whether changing the selection criteria mid-process violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the PET and DST could be converted from qualifying to merit-determinative after initiation of the process.
- Whether petitioners were estopped from challenging the selection process after participation.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Petitioners contended:
- The advertisement prescribed merit based solely on the written test, with PET/DST qualifying only.
- Changing criteria after tests violated Article 14 and the rule against arbitrariness.
- Participation did not imply consent since the criteria were changed post-PET and during DST.
- Cited Tej Prakash Pathak, Hemani Malhotra, K. Manjusree, Krishna Rai to argue that selection rules cannot be changed midway.
- Delay in some petitions was not fatal as illegality cannot be sustained solely on laches.
Respondents’ Arguments
Respondents argued:
- Recruitment Rules required qualifying PET, DST, and written test, with equal weightage (100 marks each).
- Changes were issued to align with Recruitment Rules and communicated via corrigenda.
- Petitioners participated without protest, thus estopped from challenging.
- Relied on Vijendra Kumar Verma to argue setting standards during the process is permissible.
Analysis of the Law
The court reiterated:
- Selection criteria cannot be altered midway unless explicitly permitted.
- Recruitment begins with the advertisement and ends with appointments (Tej Prakash Pathak).
- Benchmarks must be set before the stage begins, ensuring transparency and preventing arbitrariness.
- Internal communications (like the 2013 requisition prescribing 100 marks each) cannot override the public advertisement.
- Participation under protest does not imply acquiescence if changes were made post-tests.
Precedent Analysis
The court applied:
- Tej Prakash Pathak: Recruitment rules cannot change midway.
- K. Manjusree: Benchmarks post-exam are impermissible.
- Krishna Rai: Estoppel does not override illegality.
- Distinguished Vijendra Kumar Verma as it involved clear prior notice of skill testing, unlike the present case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- The advertisement was clear: Written test (200 marks) for merit; PET/DST qualifying only.
- DSSSB illegally converted PET and DST to merit-determinative post facto.
- Candidates and evaluators were unaware PET/DST would affect merit during those stages.
- Changing criteria post-tests violated Article 14 and the rule of fair recruitment.
- Participation did not bar challenge since candidates had no real choice once changes occurred.
- Delay was condoned since the issue involved constitutional rights.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court:
- Quashed the modified selection criteria.
- Directed DSSSB to redraw the merit list using the written test (200 marks) alone for merit, treating PET/DST as qualifying only.
- Ordered appointment of successful petitioners with notional seniority below current appointees, no arrears of pay, and completion within 8 weeks.
- Restricted relief to the current petitioners and similar pending matters only.
Implications
– Reinforces transparency and adherence to notified selection criteria in public employment.
– Affirms Article 14 protection against arbitrary changes during recruitment.
– Balances fairness to petitioners with practical non-disturbance of existing appointees.
– Serves as a caution to authorities to avoid post-facto procedural changes during recruitment.
FAQs
1. Can recruitment criteria be changed midway during a selection process?
No, the court reaffirmed that criteria cannot change after recruitment starts, protecting candidates’ legitimate expectations under Article 14.
2. What happens to candidates appointed under an illegal selection process?
The court allowed existing appointees to remain due to the passage of time but ordered appointments of rightful candidates below them with notional seniority only.
3. Does participation in a flawed recruitment process bar candidates from challenging it later?
No, participation does not amount to consent if criteria were changed midway, and candidates can challenge violations of fair process.