Summary
On a reference about the 'rules of the game' in public recruitment, a larger Bench held that K. Manjusree is good law and does not conflict with Subash Chander Marwaha. Manjusree concerns the right to be placed in the select list; Marwaha concerns the right to be appointed from it. Eligibility criteria for placement in the select list cannot be changed midway unless the rules or a rule-compliant advertisement permit it, and even then the change must be non-arbitrary. Benchmarks must be fixed before the relevant stage begins. Statutory rules bind the recruiting body, and selected candidates have no indefeasible right to appointment but cannot be denied it arbitrarily.
Issues
- Whether K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. lays down the correct law, given that it did not notice State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha.
- Whether the rules of the game on the method and manner of selection, as distinct from eligibility, can be changed after the recruitment process has begun.
- When the recruitment process begins and ends, and how far recruiting bodies may devise or supplement selection procedures.
- Whether a candidate placed in the select list has a right to be appointed.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaThe bar on changing the rules of the game midway, or after the game is played, rests on the rule against arbitrariness in Article 14, with Article 16 as its application to public employment. It also rests on candidates' legitimate expectation of a fair, transparent and predictable process. Any permitted change, any procedure the recruiting body devises, and any refusal to appoint from the select list must satisfy this non-arbitrariness standard. (¶¶ 4, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 30, 42)
- Article 309 (proviso), Constitution of IndiaWhere recruitment rules framed under the proviso to Article 309, or under a statute, prescribe the procedure or eligibility, the recruiting body must follow them. Administrative instructions can only fill gaps where the rules are silent or absent, and must not be ultra vires the rules, statute or Constitution. The Court followed Sivanandan C.T. and Salam Samarjeet Singh on this point. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 42)
Held
- The recruitment process begins with the advertisement inviting applications and ends with the filling of the vacancies. (¶¶ 13, 42)
- Eligibility criteria for placement in the select list, notified when the process begins, cannot be changed midway unless the extant rules, or an advertisement consistent with them, permit it. Even a permitted change must satisfy Article 14 and be non-arbitrary. (¶¶ 7, 42)
- K. Manjusree lays down good law and is not in conflict with Subash Chander Marwaha. Marwaha concerned the right to be appointed from a select list prepared under the rules, where the State chose for bona fide reasons to appoint only those above a higher score. Manjusree concerned a change in the criteria for placement in the select list after interviews were over, which affected the list. The reference order's fear that Manjusree would force appointment of all listed candidates regardless of merit was unfounded, because Manjusree confers no indefeasible right to appointment. (¶¶ 20, 21, 23, 26, 42)
- In the absence of contrary rules, the competent authority may devise the selection procedure and set benchmarks for stages such as the written test and interview. Such benchmarks must be stipulated before the recruitment process begins. If the rules or advertisement allow benchmarks to be set at different stages, they may be set at any time before that stage is reached, so that neither candidates nor examiners are taken by surprise. They cannot be set after the stage is over. (¶¶ 28, 30)
- Subject to the extant rules, recruiting bodies may devise procedures such as shortlisting, screening tests, the manner of evaluation, or subject-wise cut-offs to complete the recruitment. The procedure must be transparent, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary, and have a rational nexus with the object of the selection. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 42)
- Rules having statutory force bind the recruiting body on both procedure and eligibility. Where rules are absent or silent, administrative instructions may fill the gaps, but where the rules expressly or impliedly cover the field they must be followed. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 42)
- Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment, and the State may decide for bona fide reasons not to fill vacancies. But where vacancies exist, it cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration. When such a denial is challenged, the burden is on the State to justify it. (¶¶ 23, 40, 41, 42)
Result
Reference answered in the terms stated; the appeals were directed to be placed before an appropriate Bench for decision in light of the answers, after administrative directions from the Chief Justice.