A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court addressed whether an employer could alter the qualifications specified in an advertisement midstream during the selection process. The Court deemed such alterations arbitrary and contrary to the principles of fairness. It reaffirmed that a candidate, once eligible under the original advertisement, gains a vested right to consideration based on those terms. Modifications without due public notice or retrospective application breach procedural propriety. The appellant’s appointment was restored, revoking the conflicting appointment of the respondent.

Keywords: Selection process, Arbitrariness, Eligibility criteria, Vested right, Service law

B) CASE DETAILS

i. Judgment Cause Title:
Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others

ii. Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 1566 of 2024

iii. Judgment Date:
02 February 2024

iv. Court:
Supreme Court of India

v. Quorum:
Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.

vi. Author:
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

vii. Citation:
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1196, 2024 INSC 188

viii. Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Equality before law)
• Relevant employment rules under the State of Bihar

ix. Judgments Overruled:
The Division Bench decision of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 1892 of 2015.

x. Case Related to:
Service Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The dispute emerged from the alteration of eligibility criteria during the recruitment of “Amins” in Bihar. The advertisement issued on October 13, 2011, set the cutoff date for age calculation as January 1, 2011. The appellant satisfied this criterion. However, a subsequent internal decision changed the cutoff date to November 1, 2011, rendering him ineligible. The appellant’s grievance ascended through multiple legal stages, ultimately culminating in the Supreme Court’s intervention.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Initial Advertisement:
   On October 13, 2011, an advertisement invited applications for the post of “Amin,” fixing January 1, 2011, as the cutoff for age eligibility.

2. Appellant’s Eligibility:
   The appellant, belonging to the Economic Backward Class (EBC) category, met the age criterion, being 39 years, 11 months, and 27 days as of January 1, 2011.

3. Revised Notification:
   On November 15, 2011, without public circulation, the eligibility cutoff date was amended to November 1, 2011, through a notice displayed at the District Collectorate. The change was not publicized through proper channels.

4. Examination and Selection:
   The appellant participated in the examination, ranked high on the merit list, and was initially appointed. However, the appointment was challenged based on the revised cutoff date.

5. Legal Challenge:
   The respondent contended that the appellant’s selection violated the revised criteria. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court accepted this claim, invalidating his appointment.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Can an employer alter eligibility criteria during an ongoing recruitment process?
2. Does such alteration violate principles of fairness under Article 14?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Violation of Advertised Terms:
   The appellant argued that the initial advertisement provided a vested right to be considered based on its original terms.

2. Lack of Public Notification:
   The revised cutoff date was neither advertised publicly nor transparently, violating procedural norms.

3. Arbitrariness:
   The arbitrary alteration of criteria denied eligible candidates a fair opportunity, contravening Article 14.

4. Precedential Support:
   The appellant cited N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 SCC 157 and Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. AMU (2009) 4 SCC 555 to reinforce the illegality of midstream changes in recruitment rules.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Uniformity in Selection Criteria:
   The respondent contended that the revised cutoff ensured uniformity across Bihar.

2. Overage Allegation:
   It was alleged that the appellant did not meet the revised cutoff, justifying his disqualification.

3. Procedural Oversight:
   The respondent highlighted that the appellant’s earlier petitions did not include other candidates, undermining procedural fairness.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrariness in state action.
2. Employment Rules applicable in Bihar governed the recruitment process.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• Eligibility terms fixed in advertisements are binding and cannot be altered midstream.
• Candidates gain a limited vested right to consideration under original terms.

b. Obiter Dicta

• Internal departmental discussions cannot override publicly advertised criteria without proper public notification.

c. Guidelines Issued

1. Alterations to eligibility criteria must be retrospective or accompanied by fresh advertisements.
2. Transparency and uniformity in recruitment processes are paramount.
3. Arbitrary changes undermine equality and fairness in public employment.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

1. N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 SCC 157
2. Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University (2009) 4 SCC 555
3. Zonal Manager, Bank of India v. Aarya K. Babu (2019) 8 SCC 587

Important Statutes Referred:

1. Article 14, Constitution of India