In a historic judgment delivered by a five-judge bench, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P.S. Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, ruled that recruitment guidelines set at the start of a hiring process must not be altered once the process is underway. This verdict in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. reinforces the principle that “rules of the game” in public recruitment cannot be changed midway, ensuring that candidates are evaluated based on pre-established criteria to uphold transparency and fairness.
Case Background and Timeline of Events
The case began when the Rajasthan High Court initiated a recruitment process in September 2009 to fill 13 Translator positions. Eligible applicants included Judicial Assistants and Junior Judicial Assistants with a minimum of three years’ experience within the court and a postgraduate degree in English literature, with preference given to law graduates. No specific cutoff marks or minimum qualifications beyond this were stipulated in the recruitment notification.
Following this announcement, a written qualifying examination was conducted in December 2009. However, after the examination, the Chief Justice of the High Court unexpectedly imposed a high cutoff mark of 75%, which had not been mentioned in the initial notification. Only three of the 21 candidates were able to meet this new threshold, which led several of the unsuccessful candidates to challenge the process, asserting that this sudden introduction of a 75% cutoff amounted to changing the “rules of the game” after the process had already commenced.
The Rajasthan High Court initially dismissed these petitions in March 2011, asserting that the Chief Justice of the High Court possessed the authority to set high standards to ensure suitable candidates were selected. It reasoned that even if a candidate made it to the qualified list, there was no automatic right to appointment. Unhappy with this decision, the petitioners escalated their case to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was asked to address several fundamental legal questions:
1. Authority to Modify Recruitment Standards During the Process: The primary legal issue was whether recruitment authorities, after starting a recruitment process, could impose new standards such as additional cutoff marks.
2. Precedent on Fairness in Public Recruitment: In light of similar cases such as K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) and State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha (1974), the Court reviewed the principle that once a selection process begins, eligibility standards must remain constant.
3. Constitutional Right to Equal Opportunity: The case raised fundamental issues about how Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Indian Constitution should be interpreted in public sector hiring, particularly when candidates have a legitimate expectation based on initially stated criteria.
Observations and Key Rulings by the Supreme Court
In a detailed opinion penned by Justice Manoj Misra, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the introduction of the new cutoff marks after the examination had taken place amounted to an arbitrary change in recruitment rules. Justice Misra noted that such alterations infringe upon the principles of fairness and equal opportunity in public employment as enshrined in the Constitution. He remarked, “Changing the rules of the game after the game has been played distorts fairness, and transparency, thereby impacting candidates’ legitimate expectations.”
The judgment referenced prior rulings that reinforced this doctrine, particularly K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, in which the Supreme Court had ruled that minimum interview marks could not be imposed retroactively after interviews had taken place. The Court underscored that recruitment processes must be predictable and based on criteria that are communicated at the outset, so neither candidates nor evaluators are “taken by surprise.”
The Court also made a distinction between this case and State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, where authorities had declined to appoint candidates based on a higher standard than the minimum, without altering the eligibility criteria themselves. Justice Misra clarified that while Marwaha dealt with the discretion to select higher-performing candidates from a qualified list, Tej Prakash Pathak concerned a mid-process change in qualifying standards, an act which directly impacts the candidates’ rights.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court’s final ruling invalidated the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, holding that the recruitment criteria announced at the outset should govern the entire process. The Court further stated that the Chief Justice of the High Court could not retroactively introduce a higher cutoff, as doing so altered the candidates’ fair opportunity to succeed. The judgment affirmed that any necessary benchmarks or standards for selection should be established transparently from the beginning, in alignment with the constitutional mandate for fair and equal opportunity.
The Court concluded with a resounding affirmation of the principles of transparency in public employment: “The rules of the game, once established, must remain constant throughout the recruitment process. Altering them midway risks undermining the sanctity of the selection process and the trust vested in public institutions.”
