Summary
A 2015 Gujarat advertisement for Supervisor Instructor posts fixed category-wise cut-off marks and provided that unfilled horizontally reserved posts would go to other eligible candidates; after the results, on the State's advice, the Selection Committee lowered the cut-offs to 40 and 35 per cent to fill those posts. A Single Judge quashed the reduction but the Division Bench reversed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals: an advertisement binds like a statutory prescription and can be altered only by an amendment that satisfies Article 14, candidates acquire a vested right to be considered on its terms, and lowering cut-offs after the result for an extraneous reason is arbitrary; under Article 142 the selected private respondents may be accommodated in their reserved categories as new entrants.
Issues
- Whether the Selection Committee could, after publication of results, reduce the cut-off marks fixed in the advertisement in order to fill posts under horizontal reservation that would otherwise go to other eligible candidates under the advertisement's own terms.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaCut-off marks fixed on a conscious assessment of suitability cannot be reduced merely to provide employment to a particular category after others have acquired a right to be considered; even a permissible amendment of an advertisement must satisfy Article 14, and a reduction for the extraneous purpose of accommodating ineligible candidates is arbitrary. (¶¶ 23, 25, 30)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaTo balance equities, since the private respondents belong to the special categories and acted on the Division Bench's order and the State's policy, the State was directed to consider accommodating them in their reserved categories against available vacancies without disturbing the appellants. (¶¶ 31, 32)
- Clauses 1 and 5 and sub-clauses (15) and (19) of Clause 7, Advertisement dated 05.09.2015 for Supervisor Instructor Class IIIThe advertisement fixed category-wise cut-offs and directed that unfilled horizontally reserved posts be filled by other eligible candidates; the power to cancel or amend had to be exercised by amendment before or during the process and conferred no unbridled power to modify the selection after the results were published. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 26)
Held
- The case concerns eligibility after the examination, not qualification to apply; the rules neither treat the special reservation as vertical nor fix cut-offs, and an advertisement issued under a notification binds the parties unless contrary to a rule or Act. Following N.T. Devin Katti, a candidate has no vested right to the post but does acquire a vested right to be considered according to the advertisement's terms, which cannot be changed to facilitate another group. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Publication of the selection list after the change was a mere ministerial act; the decision in T.N. Computer Science B.Ed. Graduate Teachers Welfare Society governs and the present case stands on a stronger footing since the process was complete, the Division Bench also wrongly departed from the coordinate Bench decision in Prajapati Ishwarbhai Joitaram, and the pending reference in Tej Prakash Pathak has no bearing because, as held in Ramjit Singh Kardam, even a permissible change of criteria cannot be effected arbitrarily. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; Gujarat High Court Division Bench judgment dated 18.01.2021 in LPA Nos. 1496 and 1501 of 2019 set aside; the State and Selection Committee directed under Article 142 to consider accommodating the private respondents in their respective reserved categories against remaining vacancies, within the permissible percentage and subject to eligibility, without upsetting the appointments of the appellants and others similarly placed, the private respondents ranking as new entrants; pending applications disposed of.