Supreme Court Upholds Principle Against Retrospective Changes in Recruitment Standards – “Eligibility and Selection Criteria Must Remain Static to Protect Candidates’ Legitimate Expectations; Rules of the Game Must Not Be Changed Midway or Post-Completion”

Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of maintaining fairness in recruitment processes, holding that once the recruitment process has begun, the fundamental “rules of the game,” especially concerning eligibility criteria, cannot be altered midway or after the process’s completion. The Court underscored that introducing new standards or benchmarks during or after completion, such as minimum marks for interviews, would undermine transparency and fairness, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This approach is consistent with the doctrine of legitimate expectation and prevents arbitrariness in public employment.

Facts:
The appeals arose from a recruitment process conducted by the Rajasthan High Court for translator positions. Initially, candidates needed a minimum of a postgraduate degree in English Literature with three years of experience and were assessed through written exams and interviews. However, during the selection, the High Court stipulated a 75% cut-off mark, resulting in the qualification of only three candidates out of the 21 who applied. This change prompted challenges from unsuccessful candidates, who argued that it altered the eligibility criteria after the process had already commenced.

Issues:
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Rajasthan High Court could change the cut-off marks or other selection benchmarks after the recruitment process had started, a move the appellants argued constituted “changing the rules of the game.”

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners argued that imposing a new cut-off requirement of 75% marks after the process’s initiation was arbitrary and a violation of fair play, particularly as the original recruitment rules did not stipulate this requirement. They contended that changing criteria mid-process disrupted candidates’ legitimate expectations and fairness, as applicants had prepared under the assumption that the criteria outlined at the onset would be upheld.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents asserted that the High Court possessed the discretion to set a cut-off standard to maintain the quality of selected candidates. They argued that ensuring a high competence level among recruits necessitated flexibility in fixing such benchmarks, even if the criteria were established post-hoc.

Analysis of the Law:
The Court referenced its previous decisions on recruitment norms, emphasizing that eligibility criteria established at the commencement of the recruitment process should remain unchanged. The judgment highlighted that retrospective alteration in recruitment benchmarks violated the constitutional principles of fairness under Articles 14 and 16, ensuring equal opportunity. This position aligns with the established jurisprudence that the selection process, including qualifications and assessment criteria, should be fixed beforehand.

Precedent Analysis:
The Court analyzed previous rulings, including K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. and Subash Chander Marwaha, both of which dealt with altering eligibility criteria and selection methods. The Court found that the principle established in K. Manjusree, where post-process changes in criteria were deemed impermissible, was consistent with the earlier case of Subash Chander Marwaha, which upheld the state’s discretion only within the originally set eligibility parameters.

Court’s Reasoning:
The Court emphasized that any adjustments to eligibility or selection procedures should occur before recruitment commences to prevent unfair practices and preserve transparency. It noted that retrospective changes could mislead both applicants and assessors, who rely on predefined standards.

Conclusion:
The Court ruled against the High Court’s post-process modification, reinforcing the stance that recruitment standards should remain static once the process has commenced. The judgment affirms that modifications, such as introducing new cut-off marks or altering selection criteria, must be established at the beginning to honor candidates’ legitimate expectations.

Implications:
This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair recruitment practices within public institutions and sends a clear message against retrospective changes to eligibility criteria or selection methods. The ruling serves as a guideline for public authorities, emphasizing that transparency and fairness must guide the recruitment process to uphold candidates’ trust and constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 16.