Supreme Court Clarifies Rules of the Game in Public Employment: Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court (2024)

Date of the Judgment: November 7, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 847

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI; Hrishikesh Roy, J.; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.; Pankaj Mithal, J.; Manoj Misra, J. This was a unanimous decision authored by Manoj Misra, J.

The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical question regarding the fairness of recruitment processes in public employment. The core issue was whether the rules of the game, specifically the selection procedure, can be altered after the recruitment process has commenced. This judgment clarifies the extent to which changes can be made to the selection process and the rights of candidates involved in public employment.

Case Background

The case originated from a recruitment process initiated by the Rajasthan High Court for the position of Translators. The High Court issued a notification on September 17, 2009, inviting applications from Judicial Assistants and Junior Judicial Assistants with three years of experience and a Master’s degree in English Literature. Preference was given to law graduates. The recruitment was governed by ‘The Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules 2002’.

Initially, the qualifications and method of recruitment for Translators were specified in an Office Order dated December 5, 2002. This order required candidates to have a graduate degree with Hindi or English Literature as an optional subject or a post-graduate degree with Hindi or English Literature, along with five years of experience. A competitive examination was to be held with two papers testing translation skills, followed by a personal interview. A minimum of 75% aggregate marks and 60% in each paper was required to qualify for the interview.

However, the Office Order was amended on July 24, 2004, changing the recruitment criteria to a test in English and Hindi translation for judicial assistants or junior judicial assistants with three years of experience. The minimum qualification was a graduate degree, with preference given to law graduates. Subsequently, on September 8, 2009, another amendment specified the minimum qualification as a Post Graduate degree in English Literature.

An examination was conducted on December 19, 2009, where 21 candidates appeared. The results, declared on February 20, 2010, showed only three candidates successful because the Chief Justice of the High Court had mandated a minimum of 75% marks for selection. Unsuccessful candidates challenged this decision, claiming it was akin to “changing the rules of the game after the game is played”. The High Court dismissed their petition, stating that mere placement in the select list does not guarantee appointment and that the employer can set higher benchmarks.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the decision of the Chief Justice to fix the cut-off at 75%. They argued that this was a change in the rules of the game after the process had begun. The High Court, on its administrative side, defended the decision, stating it was taken in good faith to appoint a suitable candidate. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, asserting that being on a select list does not guarantee appointment and that employers can set higher benchmarks. Subsequently, a special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s judgment, leading to the matter being referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

Legal Framework

The appointments were governed by ‘The Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules 2002’ framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. Article 229(2) empowers the Chief Justice of the High Court to make rules regarding the conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court.

The Supreme Court also considered Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, and Article 16, which ensures equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. These Articles mandate that state actions must be fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary. The court also referred to Article 309 of the Constitution, which empowers the appropriate legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State.

The court also discussed the concept of “rules of the game,” referring to the established procedures for recruitment, and the principle that these rules should not be changed midway or after the process has commenced. The court noted that these rules fall into two categories: those that prescribe the eligibility criteria for candidates and those that stipulate the method and manner of selection.

Arguments

The arguments were broadly divided into two categories: those against changing the selection procedure mid-process and those supporting the permissibility of such changes.

Submissions Against Change

• Equality and Fairness: Changing the selection criteria after the process has begun violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality of opportunity and fairness in state action. Candidates should not be excluded based on post-facto changes.

• Right to Know Standards: Candidates have a right to know the evaluation standards before the selection process begins to prepare accordingly. Changing the cut-off marks after the process is completed can prejudice candidates.

• Prejudice to Candidates: Changes to cut-off marks after evaluation can lead to candidates not putting in the necessary effort or evaluators unknowingly miscategorizing candidates.

• Transparency: Changes mid-way create an impression of unfairness, violating transparency and fostering nepotism. Recruitment must not only be fair but also appear to be so.

• Rule of Law: Discretion to change rules mid-process is antithetical to the rule of law. The rules of the game should not be altered at the employer’s discretion.

• K. Manjusree vs. Subash Chander Marwaha: The decision in K. Manjusree is not in conflict with Subash Chander Marwaha. K. Manjusree deals with denial of placement in the select list due to a post-interview minimum marks requirement, while Subash Chander Marwaha deals with the right to be appointed from the select list. They operate in different fields.

Submissions Supporting Change

• Employer’s Discretion: In the absence of service rules or advertisement stipulations, the employer has the discretion to fix cut-offs to appoint suitable candidates.

• No Indefeasible Right: Even if no cut-off is stipulated, the employer may appoint only those above a certain cut-off, as no selected candidate has an indefeasible right to be appointed.

• Suitability for the Post: Cut-offs can be prescribed to ensure the appointment of suitable candidates, even if not initially prescribed by rules or advertisement. Efficiency in service is paramount.

• Larger Interest: Changes that do not affect the merit list but only affect appointments are permissible if they serve the larger interest of efficiency in service.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. When does the recruitment process commence and end?
2. What is the basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the course of the game or after the game is played?
3. Is the decision in K. Manjusree at variance with earlier precedents on the subject?
4. Does the above doctrine apply with equal strictness to the method or procedure for selection as it does to eligibility criteria?
5. Can the procedure for selection stipulated by an Act or Rules framed either under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or a Statute be disregarded?
6. Can appointment be denied by changing the eligibility criteria after the game is played?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various cases and legal provisions while arriving at its decision. These authorities were used to establish the principles of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness in public employment.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court analyzed the cited authorities to clarify the legal position on changing selection criteria mid-process. Here’s a summary of how the key authorities were viewed:

• C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 1293]: Cited to emphasize that eligibility criteria should not be manipulated.
• State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220]: Distinguished; the court clarified that this case dealt with the right to be appointed from a select list, not the right to be placed on it. The court held that there was no change in the rules of the game qua eligibility for placement in the select list.
• P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141]: Distinguished in K.H. Siraj; minimum marks for viva voce were held invalid in this case.
• K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. [(2008) 3 SCC 512]: Upheld as laying down good law. The court affirmed that selection criteria cannot be changed after the selection process is completed. The court clarified that the minimum marks for the interview was fixed after the interviews were over. In that context, it was observed that the game was played under the rule that there was no minimum marks for the interview, therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process consisting of written examination and interview was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played.
• K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 395]: Cited to show that the High Court can prescribe benchmarks for written and oral tests, provided they are set before the commencement of the selection process.
• Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47]: Cited to show that placement in a select list does not guarantee appointment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several key factors:

• Fairness and Non-Arbitrariness: The court emphasized that public employment processes must be fair and non-arbitrary, adhering to the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
• Legitimate Expectation: Candidates have a legitimate expectation that the rules of the game will not be changed mid-process. This expectation is rooted in the principles of fairness and consistency in government dealings.
• Transparency: The court highlighted the importance of transparency in recruitment processes to avoid any impression of bias or favoritism.
• Efficiency and Suitability: While the court acknowledged the need to appoint suitable candidates, it clarified that changes to the selection process should not be made after the process has commenced.
• Distinction between Eligibility and Selection: The court clarified the distinction between eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list and the right to be appointed from the select list.

Sentiment Analysis

Sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court as to what weighed in the mind of the court to come to the conclusion with the various points emphasised in the reasoning portion.

Fact:Law Ratio

Fact:Law Ratio Table

The following table shows the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide:

Logical Reasoning

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court is a significant ruling that reinforces the principles of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness in public employment. The court held that while employers have some discretion in devising the selection process, they cannot change the eligibility criteria or the core selection procedure after the recruitment process has commenced. This decision ensures that candidates are not unfairly disadvantaged by post-facto changes and that the recruitment process remains transparent and predictable. The judgment clarifies that the “rules of the game” must be set before the game begins, thereby upholding the principles of equality and fairness in public employment.