Service Law – Recruitment – Commencement and end of the recruitment process:
Held: The process of recruitment begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies – It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. [Para 13]
Service Law – Recruitment – Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the course of the game, or after the game is played:
Held: The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution – Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 – In other words, Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a species – Article 16 gives effect to the concept of equality in all matters relating to public employment – These two articles strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment – Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit – Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness. [Paras 14, 42(2)]
Service Law – Recruitment – Whether the decision in K. Manjusree is at variance with earlier precedents on the subject:
Held: K. Manjusree case is not at variance with earlier precedents – The decision in K. Manjusree does not proscribe setting of benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process but mandates that it should not be set after the stage is over, in other words after the game has already been played – This view is in consonance with the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and meets the legitimate expectation of the candidates as also the requirement of transparency in recruitment to public services and thereby obviates malpractices in preparation of select list – The decision in K. Manjusree case lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha case – Subash Chander Marwaha deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the Select List – The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues. [Paras 18, 30, 42(3)] Service Law – Recruitment – Whether recruiting bodies can devise an appropriate procedure for concluding recruiting process:
Held: Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. [Para 42(4)]
Service Law – Recruitment – Whether the procedure prescribed in the Extant Rule can be violated:
Held: Procedure prescribed in the Extant Rule cannot be violated – Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility – Where there are no Rules or the Rules are silent on the subject, administrative instructions may be issued to supplement and fill in the gaps in the Rules – In that event administrative instructions would govern the field provided they are not ultra vires the provisions of the Rules or the Statute or the Constitution – But where the Rules expressly or impliedly cover the field, the recruiting body would have to abide by the Rules. [Paras 39, 42(5)]
Service Law – Name in select list – Right to appointment – Whether appointment could be denied even after placement in select list:
Held: Appointment may be denied even after placement in select list – A candidate placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available – But there is a caveat – The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate – Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State’s action in respect of denying appointment to a selected candidate, the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the Select List. [Para 40] Service Law – Recruitment – Legitimate Expectation – Discretion of Public Authority – Public Interest: Held: Candidates participating in a recruitment process have legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non-arbitrary – The basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness and nonarbitrariness in government dealings with individuals – However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not impede or hinder the power of the public authorities to lay down a policy or withdraw it – The public authority has the discretion to exercise the full range of choices available within its executive power – The public authority often has to take into consideration diverse factors, concerns, and interests before arriving at a particular policy decision – The courts are generally cautious in interfering with a bona fide decision of public authorities which denies legitimate expectation provided such a decision is taken in the larger public interest – Thus, public interest serves as a limitation on the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation – Courts have to determine whether the public interest is compelling and sufficient to outweigh the legitimate expectation of the claimant. [Para 16]
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.