Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection List for Junior Engineers, Bihar: Upholds Candidate Rights (04 October 2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State can cancel a completed selection process after a select list has been prepared.

CASE TYPE: Service Law/Recruitment

Case Name: Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others

[Judgment Date]: 04 October 2024

Date of the Judgment: 04 October 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 763

Judges: Bela M. Trivedi, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Can a government cancel a recruitment process after the selection list is finalized? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the recruitment of Junior Engineers in Bihar. The court’s decision emphasizes that once a selection process is completed, the state cannot arbitrarily cancel it, thereby protecting the rights of candidates who have successfully navigated the process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, with the opinion authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Case Background

The case revolves around the recruitment of Junior Engineers in Bihar, initiated through Advertisement No. 01/2019, dated 08.03.2019, by the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC). The advertisement aimed to fill 6,379 vacancies across various state departments. The eligibility criteria required candidates to possess a Diploma in Civil Engineering from an institution recognized by the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE).

Several candidates who held diplomas from private universities/institutions approved by the University Grants Commission (UGC) were deemed ineligible because their institutions lacked AICTE approval. These candidates filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, challenging Rule 9(1)(ii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2017, which mandated AICTE approval. They argued that this rule was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharathidasan University & Anr. vs. AICTE & Ors. [2001 (8) SCC 676], which stated that universities do not need AICTE approval for technical courses.

The High Court had allowed the selection process to continue, but directed that appointments would be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. The BTSC published a selection list on 02.04.2022, but this was later partially set aside. The BTSC prepared a Final Select List, but it was not released due to a High Court order. Subsequently, the Government of Bihar decided to cancel the entire recruitment process, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Patna initially allowed the selection process to continue, subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. The High Court, in its order dated 19.04.2022 in CWJC No. 7312/2021, found Rule 4(A) of the Rules, which granted 40% institutional reservation to diploma holders from State-run Polytechnic Institutes, to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Consequently, the High Court directed the BTSC to prepare a fresh select list granting 40% institutional reservation to diploma holders from any polytechnic institute recognized by the AICTE and affiliated with the State Board of Technical Institutions, Bihar.

Subsequently, the High Court, vide order dated 01.12.2022 in CWJC No. 7761/2022, directed the BTSC to withhold the declaration of results until leave is granted by the Court. The State Government then decided to cancel the entire recruitment process. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions, permitting the State to amend the rules and initiate a fresh recruitment process.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the All-India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987, and the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015, as amended in 2017. Rule 9(1)(ii) of the amended rules stipulated that only diplomas from institutions approved by the AICTE would be considered valid for the post of Junior Engineer.

The Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University & Anr. vs. AICTE & Ors. [2001 (8) SCC 676] had held that universities do not require prior approval from AICTE to commence new technical courses. This position was reiterated by the AICTE in a public notice dated 09.02.2022, which stated that universities are not required to take approval from AICTE for technical programs except for Open Distance Learning (ODL) and online courses.

The relevant legal provisions include:

• Rule 9(1)(ii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2017: “prescribing technical qualification eligibility for selection/appointment to the technical post in the State of Bihar.”
• Rule 9(1)(iii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015: “Educational Eligibility. a) Junior Engineer (Civil) i. Diploma -in-Civil Engineering conferred by the concerned Technical Educational Council/University recognised by All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi. ii. Diploma -in-Civil Engineering through non -distance mode conferred by the concerned Deemed University established under the UGC Act provided the Deemed University is duly approved by the University Grants Commission for the said Course.”
• Rule 4(A) of the Rules: “granting 40% institutional reservation to diploma holders from State -run Polytechnic Institutes”
• Rule 8(2) of the Bihar Subordinate Engineering (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) Cadre Rules, 2023: “appropriate provisions for the grant of one -time age relaxations”

Arguments

The Appellants (successful candidates) argued that:

• The Writ Petitioners, having participated in the selection process, were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence and could not challenge the eligibility criteria post-facto.
• The cancellation of the entire selection process after its completion and preparation of the Final Select List was unjustified and amounted to changing the rules of the game after the declaration of results.
• They had a vested right to be appointed as they were successful candidates.
• The State Government’s decision to cancel the process was arbitrary as it did not specify the anomaly with Rule 9(1)(iii).

The Private Respondents (Writ Petitioners) argued that:

• The cancellation of the selection process would seriously impact their interests.
• As per the AICTE’s stand, their applications were eligible and should be reconsidered.

The State of Bihar argued that:

• It was within its domain to scrap the selection process due to numerous legal issues concerning the applicable Rules.
• The selection process was consistently carried out with the rider that appointments were subject to the outcome of pending litigation.
• The Final Select List was neither considered by the High Court nor published, thus no right to appointment vested with the Appellants.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the Appellants’ assertion that the State’s decision to cancel the entire process was arbitrary and violated the principle against changing the rules of the game after it has been played. This argument was crucial in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue addressed was:

• Whether the State can cancel a completed selection process after a select list has been prepared, especially when the process was conducted as per the extant rules.

The sub-issue that the court dealt with was:

• Whether the eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval for diplomas from private universities was valid, considering the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bharathidasan University and the AICTE’s subsequent clarification.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the State’s action of scrapping the entire selection process was not permissible. The Court directed the State/BTSC to proceed with the Fresh Select List submitted in compliance with the order dated 19.04.2022 in CWJC No. 7312/2021, which had attained finality. The Court also directed that the Fresh Select List must include, as far as possible, those meritorious candidates who were otherwise eligible but were declared ineligible solely on account of the 2017 amendment to the Rules, i.e., on account of their institute not being recognized by the AICTE.

The Court emphasized that changing the rules of the game after the game was played is impermissible, relying on the three-judge bench decision in K. Manjusree (supra).

Authorities and How They Were Viewed by the Court:

Bharathidasan University & Anr. vs. AICTE & Ors. [2001 (8) SCC 676]: The court relied on this authority to emphasize that universities do not require AICTE approval for technical courses.

K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512: The court heavily relied on this case to state that changing rules of the game after the game has been played is not permissible.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a selection process cannot be arbitrarily cancelled once it has been completed, especially after a select list has been prepared. The court emphasized the need to protect the rights of candidates who had successfully participated in the process. The Court also took into account the fact that the eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval was inconsistent with the previous ruling of the Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University and the subsequent clarification by AICTE. The prolonged delay in appointments and the significant number of vacant posts also weighed heavily on the Court’s decision.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual details of the case.

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the State had the right to cancel the process due to legal issues, but rejected it because the selection process had already been completed and the eligibility criteria was inconsistent with the law. The court also considered the argument that the candidates were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence, but rejected it because the issue of eligibility was a legal one and could be challenged.

The decision was reached by directing the State to prepare a fresh select list based on the previous selection process, including those who were wrongly excluded due to the AICTE requirement.

The court’s reasoning was summarized as follows:

• The State cannot change the rules of the game after the game has been played.
• The eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval was inconsistent with the Bharathidasan University judgment.
• The rights of the successful candidates must be protected.
• The prolonged delay in appointments and the large number of vacant posts need to be addressed.

The court quoted the following from K. Manjusree (supra):

“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 which is clearly impermissible.”

“the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced”

“Here, not only the rules of the game were changed, but they were changed after the game had been played and the results of the game were being awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, and both judges concurred with the decision.

The court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving recruitment processes. It reinforces the principle that once a selection process is completed, the state cannot arbitrarily cancel it. The decision also clarifies that eligibility criteria must be consistent with existing laws and precedents.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines. However, it reaffirmed the existing principle against changing the rules of the game after the game has been played, and applied it to the context of a government recruitment process.

Key Takeaways

• The State cannot cancel a completed selection process after the select list is prepared.
• Eligibility criteria must be consistent with existing laws and precedents.
• The rights of successful candidates in a selection process must be protected.
• The principle against changing the rules of the game after it has been played is firmly upheld.
• This judgment will impact future recruitment processes, ensuring they are conducted fairly and transparently.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The Fresh Select List be prepared in view of order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the High Court in CWJC No. 7312/2021.
• The Fresh Select List shall also include as far as possible those meritorious candidates who were otherwise eligible but were declared ineligible solely on account of the 2017 amendment to the Rules i.e., on account of their institute not being recognised by the AICTE, and all similarly placed successful candidates.
• The BTSC is directed to prepare the Revised Select List within 3 months of this Order and the State Government is directed to act upon the Revised Select List submitted by the Commission within a period of 30 days thereafter.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that once a selection process is completed and a select list has been prepared, the State cannot arbitrarily cancel the process. This judgment reinforces the principle established in K. Manjusree and applies it to the context of government recruitment, ensuring that candidates’ rights are protected. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment clarifies that the principle against changing the rules of the game applies to government recruitment processes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others is a significant ruling that protects the rights of candidates in recruitment processes. The Court has clearly stated that the State cannot cancel a completed selection process after a select list has been prepared. This decision reinforces the principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has been played, ensuring fairness and transparency in government recruitments. The Court’s direction to prepare a fresh select list based on the previous process, including those who were wrongly excluded, is a just and equitable resolution to the complex issues involved in this case.

Category:

Service Law

Recruitment

Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015

Rule 9(1)(ii), Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar case?

A: The main issue was whether the State Government could cancel a completed recruitment process for Junior Engineers after the selection list was finalized.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court decided that the State Government could not cancel the recruitment process after the selection list was prepared. The Court ordered the preparation of a fresh select list based on the previous process.

Q: Why did the State Government want to cancel the recruitment?

A: The State Government wanted to cancel the recruitment due to legal issues concerning the applicable rules and the eligibility criteria, specifically regarding AICTE approval.

Q: What is the significance of the Bharathidasan University case in this context?

A: The Bharathidasan University case established that universities do not require prior approval from AICTE to commence new technical courses. This was a key factor in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Q: What does “changing the rules of the game after the game has been played” mean?

A: It means that once a selection process is completed, the criteria for selection cannot be altered. This principle ensures fairness and transparency.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future recruitment processes?

A: This judgment means that government bodies cannot arbitrarily cancel recruitment processes after they are completed. It ensures that the rights of candidates who have successfully completed the process are protected.

Q: What should candidates do if they were affected by the cancellation?

A: Candidates who were declared ineligible solely due to the AICTE requirement should be included in the fresh select list.