A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case examines the crucial principle in service law that rules of the game cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process or after its completion. The judgment delves into whether the decision in K. Manjusree conflicted with earlier decisions, particularly in Subash Chander Marwaha. The Court also addressed whether recruitment authorities could adopt new procedural benchmarks during the recruitment process and if candidates in a select list have an indefeasible right to appointment.

The Court observed that eligibility criteria, once notified, must remain unchanged during the recruitment process to maintain transparency and fairness under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution. However, it clarified that appointing authorities can ensure candidates meet standards of merit and competence, even by devising additional benchmarks, provided such changes are not arbitrary.

Keywords: Service Law, Recruitment Process, Rules of the Game, Article 14, Select List, Legitimate Expectation, K. Manjusree Case.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013

iii) Judgement Date
07 November 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, JJ.

vi) Author
Justice Manoj Misra

vii) Citation
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 28 : 2024 INSC 847

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India
• Article 16 of the Constitution of India
• Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002

ix) Judgments Overruled
None.

x) Case Related to Law Subjects
Service Law, Constitutional Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose due to disputes surrounding changes in procedural benchmarks during a recruitment process for the position of Translators in the Rajasthan High Court. Initially, candidates who participated in the selection process challenged the decision of the Chief Justice of the High Court to impose a minimum cut-off of 75% marks post-examination, arguing that it constituted a change in the “rules of the game” after the process had commenced.

The case was referred to a larger Bench as the earlier decision in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) was questioned for allegedly ignoring the principles laid down in Subash Chander Marwaha (1974).

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Recruitment Notification:
   On 17 September 2009, the Rajasthan High Court issued a recruitment notification for 13 posts of Translators. Candidates were required to have an M.A. in English Literature and three years of experience.

2. Method of Recruitment:
   A qualifying examination was prescribed, consisting of:

   • Paper I: English to Hindi Translation (100 marks)
   • Paper II: Hindi to English Translation (100 marks).

   Candidates securing 75% aggregate marks and a minimum of 60% in each paper would proceed to an interview worth 50 marks.

3. Post-Facto Benchmark:
   During the recruitment process, the Chief Justice imposed a 75% minimum aggregate requirement to finalize the selection list, resulting in only 3 candidates being selected out of 21.

4. Challenge:
   Some candidates challenged this decision, arguing that imposing new benchmarks amounted to changing the rules of the game after the recruitment process commenced. The High Court dismissed the challenge, asserting the authority’s prerogative to ensure high standards.

5. Appeal:
   The candidates appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the reference for an authoritative pronouncement on the issue.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. When does the recruitment process commence and conclude?
2. Whether the “rules of the game” doctrine applies equally to procedural changes during recruitment.
3. Is the decision in K. Manjusree at variance with earlier decisions?
4. Can recruiting bodies alter procedures mid-recruitment?
5. Whether candidates in a select list have a right to appointment?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Arbitrary Action:
   Imposing a 75% cut-off after the examination violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a decision was arbitrary and contrary to principles of fairness.

2. Legitimate Expectation:
   Candidates had a legitimate expectation that the notified recruitment criteria would remain unchanged. Introducing new benchmarks mid-process undermined transparency and fairness.

3. K. Manjusree Precedent:
   The case of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh clearly held that rules of the game cannot be changed after the process begins.

4. Procedural Fairness:
   Changing benchmarks post-facto denied candidates the opportunity to prepare adequately and violated procedural fairness.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Administrative Prerogative:
   The High Court has the authority to ensure the suitability and competence of candidates by adopting higher benchmarks.

2. Public Interest:
   The decision to impose a 75% cut-off was taken in the larger public interest to maintain high standards in judicial administration.

3. No Indefeasible Right:
   Placement in the select list does not confer an automatic right to appointment. The authority has discretion to adopt stricter standards.

4. Consistency with Precedents:
   The respondents relied on Subash Chander Marwaha to argue that authorities can impose higher standards even after notifying vacancies.