The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that for recruitments of public appointments to be transparent and non-arbitrary, the rules of selection cannot be changed midway the recruitment process.
It added that if rules so permit the employer to set benchmarks at different stages of appointment, they must be in place before that stage arrives.
The Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, was referring to a 2008 SC decision in K Manjushree v State of Andhra Pradesh which held that tinkering with the selection criteria cannot be done after the process of selection got over.
The reference was made in a 2013 judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v State of Rajasthan which dealt with recruitment of 13 translators in Rajasthan judiciary.
Also Read:SC orders liquidation of debt-ridden Jet Airways
The bench, also comprising justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra said, “The recruitment process commences with issue of advertisement and ends with filling of vacancies. The eligibility rules cannot be changed midway unless extant rules permit. Even if rules permit such change to be made, it should not be arbitrary and should be in consonance with the standards set under Article 14 (equality) and Article 16 (non-discrimination in public employment).”
Justice Misra, who authored the decision, held that Manjushree was correct law and the reference bench in 2013 could not have doubted this decision for not considering an earlier decision in State of Haryana v Subhash Chander Marwaha (1974) as the issues decided in that case were on a different footing.
The court emphasised that the rules for the recruitment process should be transparent and non-discriminatory and arbitrary.
However, mere placement of a candidate in the selection list does not give any absolute right of employment.
“If vacancy exists, the state cannot deny appointment to candidates within the zone of selection”, the bench added.
The object of any recruitment is left to the employer to devise the criteria best suited for the post, the bench held.
“The employer has to devise the criteria most suitable to the post subject to Article 14 and 16. The appointment authority, in the absence of rules to the contrary, can devise procedure and set benchmarks for different stages of recruitment. Such rules have to be set before the recruitment process or before that stage is reached, the benchmark can be fixed so that the candidate is not taken by surprise”, it added.
The court held that such principle will be prevent arbitrariness and promote transparency in public employment.