NEW DELHI: Giving a legal cloak to the age-old norm 'rules of the game can't be changed mid-way', the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the eligibility criteria for govt jobs cannot be altered after advertising vacancies, and also said that transparency and non-discrimination are inflexible features of public recruitment.
A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra said, "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."
Writing the judgment, Justice Misra said, "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."
The bench said recruiting authorities must devise appropriate procedures for keeping the process of selection "transparent, non-discriminatory/nonarbitrary" with focus on achieving the object of selecting the right candidate for the public employment.
Referring to open-ended advertisements for recruitment, SC said it may give some discretion to the recruiting authority to adopt steps relevant to the process of recruitment and nature of employment, but none of such steps could be arbitrary or violative of right to non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, it also said that even if a person finds his name in the list of selected candidates on completion of the recruitment process, he/she does not get "an indefeasible right to appointment".
However, the five-judge bench put in a caveat: "The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate." But it clarified that "the State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies."
It said if vacancies exist, a candidate in the zone of consideration of the select list cannot be arbitrarily denied appointment.
The SC said when a candidate moves a judicial forum challenging the govt's decision not to appoint him/her despite figuring in the select list the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the list.
A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra said, "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."
Writing the judgment, Justice Misra said, "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."
The bench said recruiting authorities must devise appropriate procedures for keeping the process of selection "transparent, non-discriminatory/nonarbitrary" with focus on achieving the object of selecting the right candidate for the public employment.
Referring to open-ended advertisements for recruitment, SC said it may give some discretion to the recruiting authority to adopt steps relevant to the process of recruitment and nature of employment, but none of such steps could be arbitrary or violative of right to non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, it also said that even if a person finds his name in the list of selected candidates on completion of the recruitment process, he/she does not get "an indefeasible right to appointment".
However, the five-judge bench put in a caveat: "The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate." But it clarified that "the State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies."
It said if vacancies exist, a candidate in the zone of consideration of the select list cannot be arbitrarily denied appointment.
The SC said when a candidate moves a judicial forum challenging the govt's decision not to appoint him/her despite figuring in the select list the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the list.
You may also like
Strictly's Dianne Buswell makes emotional admission about Chris McCausland after double blow
Mikel Arteta's top transfer priority made clear as Arsenal star drops exit hint
Ahead of Wayanad poll, EC seizes food kits with Priyanka, Rahul pics
Did Kamala Harris 'Copy' Hillary Clinton's 2016 Concession Speech? Plagiarism Claims Emerge
Indonesia prepares 1.5 mn hectares of land for dairy, beef cattle farming investments
