Summary
Bihar cancelled a completed Junior Engineer (Civil) recruitment, after a final select list had been prepared, and the High Court accepted the cancellation without deciding the writ petitions. The Supreme Court held that scrapping the concluded process to recruit afresh under new rules changed the rules of the game after it was played. It directed a revised select list that complies with the High Court's final order on institutional reservation and, as far as possible, includes candidates excluded only because their institutes lacked AICTE approval.
Issues
- Whether the State could cancel the entire recruitment under the 08.03.2019 advertisement after the selection was complete and a final select list prepared, and recruit afresh under new rules.
- Whether the High Court could dispose of the writ petitions by permitting the cancellation without deciding the issues raised.
- Whether diploma holders from UGC-approved, statute-created universities could be excluded only because their institutions were not AICTE-approved, under the 2017 amendment to Rule 9.
Provisions considered
- Rule 9 (educational qualification, as amended in 2017), Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015 (as amended in 2017)The amended rule, repeated in the advertisement, required a civil engineering diploma from a body recognised by AICTE or from a UGC-approved deemed university. The Court found this prima facie contrary to Bharathidasan University v. AICTE and to AICTE's own stand that universities need no AICTE approval. It held that the restriction arbitrarily excluded the writ petitioners. (¶¶ 3, 4, 21, 27, 29)
- Rule 4(A) (40% institutional reservation), Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015 (as amended in 2017)In a separate, now final, writ decision, the High Court had struck down reservation confined to State-run polytechnics and directed a fresh list extending the 40% reservation to diploma holders from any AICTE-recognised polytechnic in Bihar affiliated to the State Board. The Supreme Court required the revised select list to comply with that order. (¶¶ 9, 22, 24, 27, 29)
Held
- The 2017 amendment limiting eligibility to diplomas from AICTE-approved institutions was prima facie contrary to Bharathidasan University v. AICTE, as AICTE itself accepted. Its reproduction in the advertisement arbitrarily excluded candidates holding diplomas from UGC-approved private universities established by statute. (¶ 21)
- Once the selection process had been concluded and a final select list prepared, the State's decision to scrap it and recruit afresh under new rules changed the rules of the game after the game was played. This is impermissible under K. Manjusree and deprived candidates of their right to be considered under the earlier rules. (¶¶ 26, 28, 29)
- The High Court erred in disposing of the writ petitions abruptly, without reasons and without deciding any issue, merely by recording the State's statement and permitting it to amend the rules. (¶ 27)
- Given that the earlier select list had not been specifically set aside, that AICTE maintained its approval was unnecessary for such universities, that the institutional reservation order had become final, and that no Junior Engineer (Civil) appointments had been made for over ten years with thousands of posts vacant, the interest of justice required a fresh merit list for the vacancies advertised in 2019 rather than a new recruitment. (¶¶ 19, 24, 27, 29)
Result
Appeals disposed of with directions: the Bihar Technical Service Commission is to prepare, within three months, a revised select list for the 2019 advertisement complying with the High Court's order of 19.04.2022 in CWJC No. 7312/2021 and including, as far as possible, meritorious candidates declared ineligible solely for lack of AICTE recognition of their institute, along with similarly placed successful candidates; the State is to act on the list within 30 days thereafter.