Service Law – Appointment/Recruitment/Selection – Bihar Engineering Services Class - II Recruitment Rules, 2019 – The dispute in the present case is with respect to the retrospective application of an amendment to the Bihar Engineering Services Class – II Recruitment Rules, 2019, specifically the introduction of r.8(5), whereby weightage for prior contractual work experience was introduced after the selection process comprising the written examination had initiated and the provisional merit list had already been published – The appellants had preferred the writ petition challenging the retrospective application of the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022 – The High Court dismissed the writ petition – Correctness: Held: In the present case, the “game” had not only commenced but was at its fag end – The written examinations were held in March 2022 – The results were declared in June/July 2022 – The candidates were called for document verification – At this stage, the selection process had proceeded significantly, and would have concluded with the filling up of vacancies – The issuance of the 2022 Amendment Rules, introducing r.8(5) with retrospective effect from 06.03.2019, attempts to rewrite the rules of the game which has already begun – By reducing the 25 weightage of the written examination to 75 marks and introducing 25 marks for contractual experience, the State has fundamentally altered the basis of selection and changed the ‘eligibility criteria for being placed in the merit list’ which is not permissible – While the State undoubtedly has the power to amend rules under the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution of India, this power is not unbridled – The power of retrospective legislation cannot be exercised to take away vested rights or to arbitrarily disrupt a selection process that has already resulted in the identification of successful candidates by publication of a provisional merit list – The distinction drawn by the respondents regarding the “provisional” nature of the merit list is untenable – The list was provisional subject to verification of documents, not subject to a fundamental change in the criteria for placement in the merit list itself – The retrospective application of r.8(5) creates an anomaly where candidates who competed under one set of rules are now being judged by another, ex post facto – This directly impacts the appellants, who may be pushed down the merit list or ousted entirely by candidates who score lower in the written exam but gain the newly introduced additional marks for contractual service – The finding of the High Court that the amendment was merely a policy decision and could be applied retrospectively to the selection process in vogue is completely erroneous – The retrospective application of r.8(5) of the 2019 Rules, as introduced by the 2022 Amendment Rules, cannot be sustained insofar as the recruitment process initiated vide the 2019 Advertisements following the 2019 Rules prevalent at the said point of time – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 34-38, 41, 42, 44]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.