Summary
The Court permitted APSC to complete the advertised recruitment of 65 Assistant Engineers under its 2010 rules. The 2019 procedure was prospective and expressly saved pending selections. Applying it only to the interview after a screening test without negative marking would impose inconsistent standards within one process and prejudice candidates. The High Court’s direction to apply the new procedure midway was reversed.
Issues
- Whether the 2019 procedure could govern the remaining stage of a recruitment advertised under the saved 2010 rules.
Held
- The governing norms were ordinarily those existing when the selection began, unless new rules operated retrospectively. The 2019 procedure had no retrospective application to this advertised recruitment and expressly preserved pending processes. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- The screening test had been conducted without the negative marking required by the new procedure. Giving that test the new procedure’s dominant weight while changing the interview rules would produce an anomalous and prejudicial mixture of standards. (¶¶ 11, 12, 16, 17)
- Rules 29 and 30 provided a framework for merit assessment under the earlier regime. The single ongoing recruitment was to be completed under those saved rules rather than divided between two procedures. (¶¶ 3, 16, 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court direction applying the 2019 procedure interfered with; APSC permitted to complete selection for the 65 advertised Assistant Engineer (Civil) posts under the 2010 rules.