In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, on October 4, 2024, quashed the Bihar Government’s decision to cancel the 2019 recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The court held that introducing new eligibility criteria after the recruitment process had been completed amounted to “changing the rules of the game after the game was played,” which is impermissible under the law. The ruling offers relief to several candidates whose selection had been nullified due to the government’s sudden decision to cancel the process.
Background of the Case
The case began with the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) issuing Advertisement No. 01/2019 on March 8, 2019, to fill 6,379 vacancies for Junior Engineer (Civil) positions across various state departments. As per the advertisement, candidates were required to have a diploma in civil engineering from institutions recognized by the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The eligibility criteria were based on Rule 9(1)(iii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015, which had been amended in 2017.
A group of candidates, who had been declared ineligible for the posts, challenged the recruitment process in the Patna High Court. These candidates, holding diplomas from private universities not recognized by AICTE, argued that the rule mandating AICTE approval violated the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Bharathidasan University & Anr. vs. AICTE & Ors. (2001). In that judgment, the court held that universities were not required to seek AICTE approval for running technical courses.
The Patna High Court allowed the recruitment process to proceed, with some restrictions, while the legal challenge remained pending. Eventually, the Bihar Government decided to cancel the entire recruitment process, citing anomalies in the existing rules and the need for new recruitment guidelines. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions, giving the government the green light to amend the rules and restart the recruitment process.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Validity of Rule 9(1)(iii): The legal dispute centered around the validity of the rule that required candidates to have diplomas from AICTE-recognized institutions. The petitioners argued that this rule was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bharathidasan University.
2. Doctrine of Acquiescence: The successful candidates argued that the petitioners, having participated in the recruitment process, could not challenge the eligibility criteria after the fact. This argument relied on the doctrine of acquiescence, which bars challenges to a process after participating in it without objection.
3. Post-Facto Changes in Rules: The most contentious issue was whether the Bihar Government could legally cancel the recruitment process and amend the rules after the selection process had been completed.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, held that the Bihar Government’s decision to cancel the recruitment process after its completion amounted to “changing the rules of the game after the game was played.” The court emphasized that such post-facto changes were not permissible under the law and deprived candidates of their legitimate right to be considered for the position based on the rules that were in effect when the recruitment process began.
Justice Trivedi, delivering the judgment, observed:
“Introducing new requirements into the selection process after the entire selection process was completed amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. Such actions deprive candidates of their legitimate rights and cannot be justified under the principles of fairness.”
The court also noted that the 2017 amendment to the recruitment rules, which restricted eligibility to candidates with diplomas from AICTE-approved institutions, was in direct contradiction with the Bharathidasan University judgment. Given this inconsistency, the court directed the Bihar Technical Service Commission to prepare a fresh select list based on the 2019 advertisement.
Key Observations of the Court
– “Changing the rules of the game after the game is played is impermissible, as it deprives candidates of their legitimate rights.”
– “The 2017 amendment to the recruitment rules was inconsistent with established legal principles and unduly restricted eligibility for qualified candidates.”
– “The state government’s decision to cancel the entire recruitment process was arbitrary and lacked specific reasoning to justify such a drastic action.”
Case Title: Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7257 of 2023)
