Govt jobs' eligibility can't be changed midway through recruitment: SC
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the rules of appointment to a government job cannot be changed midway unless the procedure permits it. The eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list notified at the commencement of the recruitment process can’t be changed midway, said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who headed a five-judge bench that issued the ruling.
The CJI said, "Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list notified at the commencement of the recruitment process can't 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."
The bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, unanimously held if a change of criteria is permissible under the extant rules or advertisement, it would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.
"Recruiting bodies subject to the extant rules may devise an 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 rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved," Justice Misra said while pronouncing the verdict.
The bench said that extant rules that have statutory force are binding on the recruiting bodies in terms of procedure and eligibility.
"Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The state or its instrumentality for bona fide reason may choose not to fill up the vacancy," it said.
However, the bench clarified that if vacancies exist, the state or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointments to persons who are in the zone of consideration in the select list.
The top court answered a question related to appointment criteria for government jobs referred to it by a three-judge bench in March 2013. Referring to a 1965 verdict, the three-judge bench had said it was a salutary principle not to permit the state or its instrumentalities to tinker with the 'rules of the game' insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria was concerned.
