Summary
The Supreme Court upheld cancellation of Haryana’s PTI selection after arbitrary changes abandoned the notified written test and merit screening. The Chairman lacked authority to alter criteria entrusted to the multi-member Commission without delegation. Candidates unaware of the criteria until publication of results were not estopped by participation. Selection was to resume at the written-test stage for original applicants, with protection against recovery of pay already earned.
Issues
- Whether participation barred challenges to undisclosed selection criteria.
- Whether the Chairman’s changes and the purported Commission resolution validly supported selection.
- Whether malice in law could be examined without personal impleadment and whether the 2012 rules barred completion of the earlier recruitment.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph 6(d), as substituted in 2007, Haryana Staff Selection Commission constituting notificationEntrusted devising the selection mode and criteria to the Commission as a body; no delegation to the Chairman was shown. (¶¶ 33, 34, 49, 50, 51)
- Rules 9(5) and 20, Haryana School Education (Group-C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012Neither the diminishing-cadre provision nor repeal prevented completion of the previously initiated recruitment under the judicial directions. (¶¶ 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72)
Held
- Participation did not bar challenge where the notified process was abandoned and the actual criteria first appeared with the final result. Candidates unaware of those criteria could challenge the arbitrary process after disclosure. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 57)
- Even assuming selecting authorities may change criteria during recruitment, changes cannot be arbitrary. Scrapping the written test without disclosed administrative reasons and successively abandoning screening downgraded merit and was unsustainable. The wider question referred in Tej Prakash Pathak was not decided. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46, 48, 54, 55, 58)
- The Commission was a multi-member body entrusted with fixing criteria. With neither rules nor a resolution delegating that function, unilateral changes by its Chairman were not Commission decisions. The purported resolution dated 3 August 2008 was found to have been prepared after the results when the High Court sought the criteria. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58)
- The case concerned malice in law, rather than personal ill will. Original records and patterns in the marks supported the High Court’s inferences; absence of specific personal allegations or personal impleadment did not prevent scrutiny of those institutional illegalities. (¶¶ 59, 60, 61, 62, 63)
- The 2012 rules did not automatically upgrade all PTIs into the TGT cadre or prevent completion of this earlier recruitment. Selection must resume from the stage of the improperly abandoned written test among the original applicants, without fresh advertisement. Long continuation under interim orders did not preserve invalid selections. (¶¶ 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74)
Result
Appeals disposed of upholding the High Court with modifications: resume selection for original applicants, including selected candidates, through the notified 200-mark written test and 25-mark viva voce; complete within five months of Commission resuming work after lockdown. No recovery of pay or benefits for work performed, including from retirees. High Court costs deleted except those imposed on the Commission.