Supreme Court Upholds 2010 Rules for Ongoing Recruitment: APSC vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma (28 November 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 123

Judges: R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy

Can a change in recruitment rules mid-selection affect the process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). The core issue was whether the APSC could apply new rules to an ongoing recruitment process, or if the rules in place at the start of the process should govern the entire selection. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy, with Justice Hrishikesh Roy authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The APSC initiated a recruitment process for 65 Assistant Engineer (Civil) positions in the Water Resources Department, advertising the vacancies on 21st December 2018. At that time, the Assam Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010 (the 2010 Rules) were in effect. These rules outlined the criteria for assessment, including academic merit, special knowledge, and relevant experience.

During the pendency of the recruitment process, the 2010 Rules were repealed and replaced by the Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019 (the 2019 Procedure), effective from 1st April 2019. The 2019 Procedure introduced changes such as negative marking in the screening test and a cap on interview marks.

The respondents, who had applied for the Assistant Engineer positions, challenged a specific clause (12.2) of the 2019 Procedure. This clause stated that ongoing selection processes could continue under the old 2010 Rules. The respondents argued that the new 2019 Procedure should apply to the remaining stages of the selection process, particularly the interview stage, to ensure a more transparent and merit-based selection.

The Gauhati High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the 2019 Procedure should apply to all pending interviews and selections, even if the initial advertisement was issued before 1st April 2019. The APSC then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interplay between the 2010 Rules and the 2019 Procedure of the APSC.

✓ The Assam Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010: These rules were in effect when the recruitment process began. They provided for assessment of academic merit, special knowledge, additional relevant qualification, and relevant service experience. Rule 29 allowed the Commission to determine qualifying standards based on these factors. Rule 30 specified that viva-voce marks would be allocated 50% for academic/professional qualifications/service experience and 50% for subject knowledge and general bearing.

✓ The Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019: These rules replaced the 2010 Rules, introducing changes such as negative marking in screening tests (Clause 4(B)(ii)) and limiting interview marks to 12.2% of the total marks (Clause 4(B)(vi)). Clause 12.2 of the 2019 Procedure stated that any pending interviews/selections could be continued and completed under the 2010 Rules.

The core issue was the interpretation of Clause 12.2 of the 2019 Procedure and whether it should be applied to the ongoing recruitment process.

Arguments

Arguments of the APSC (Appellants):

• The APSC argued that the selection process had commenced with the advertisement issued on 21st December 2018, and therefore, the 2010 Rules should apply.
• The APSC contended that the 2019 Procedure, which came into effect on 1st April 2019, should not affect the ongoing process due to the savings clause in the 2019 Procedure (Clause 12.2).
• The APSC highlighted that the screening test was conducted under the 2010 Rules, and applying the 2019 Procedure mid-selection would be unfair to candidates.

Arguments of the Respondents (Writ Petitioners):

• The respondents argued that the 2019 Procedure was adopted to bring more transparency to the recruitment process and address deficiencies in the 2010 Rules.
• The respondents contended that the 2010 Rules did not give adequate weightage to the merit of the candidates, especially in the viva-voce segment, and therefore, the 2019 Procedure should govern the next phase of selection.
• The respondents argued that applying the 2019 Procedure in the interview segment would ensure a more merit-based selection.

The innovativeness in the argument by the respondents is that they argued for the application of the new rules to the ongoing recruitment process, which is an exception to the general principle that the rules existing at the time of advertisement should apply.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the 2019 Procedure can be applied to a recruitment process that commenced under the 2010 Rules, given that the advertisement was issued before the 2019 Procedure came into effect.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the rules in force at the time of the advertisement should govern the entire selection process. The court emphasized the need to maintain fairness and consistency in the recruitment process. The court also considered the savings clause in the 2019 Procedure, which explicitly stated that ongoing processes should be completed under the 2010 Rules.

The Court was concerned that applying the 2019 Procedure mid-selection would be unfair to candidates who had taken the screening test under the 2010 Rules, which did not have negative marking. The Court also noted that the APSC is capable of conducting a fair selection under the 2010 Rules.

The Court rejected the argument that the 2019 Procedure should apply to the interview stage, noting that it would result in a situation where candidates are evaluated under two different sets of rules. The Court emphasized that such dual norms should not govern an ongoing recruitment process.

The Supreme Court held that the recruitment process initiated by the APSC through the advertisement dated 21.12.2018 should be finalized under the 2010 Rules. The Court interfered with the High Court’s direction to apply the 2019 Procedure.

The Court observed, “The consistent law on the issue also makes it clear that recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement issued by the APSC on 21st December, 2018 must necessarily be conducted under the selection norms as applicable on the date of the advertisement.”

The Court further stated, “In the present case, if the contention advanced by the respondents is accepted and the next segment of the process of selection is carried out under the 2019 Procedure, it will give rise to an anomalous situation inasmuch as the screening test which was conducted without negative marking, under the 2010 Rules , without provisions for negative markings, will have a major bearing in the final outcome of selection.”

The Court also noted, “If the direction in the impugned judgment of the High Court is to be followed for conducting the next segment of the selection, for the single recruitment process the candidates will be evaluated by two different sets of procedure i.e. the 2010 Rules and the 2019 Procedure and such dual norms must not in our opinion, govern the ongoing recruitment process.”

Key Takeaways

• Recruitment processes are governed by the rules in force at the time of the advertisement.
• Changes in rules during an ongoing selection process should not affect the process unless the new rules are explicitly retrospective.
• Savings clauses in new rules are crucial and must be upheld to ensure fairness and consistency.
• This judgment reinforces the principle of legitimate expectation of candidates who apply for positions under specific rules.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the APSC to complete the process of selection for the advertised posts by following the 2010 Rules.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the rules in force at the time of the advertisement for a recruitment process will govern the entire selection process. This judgment reinforces the established principle that alterations to the norms of selection during an ongoing process should not affect the process unless the new rules are expressly given retrospective effect. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the APSC, setting aside the Gauhati High Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the recruitment process for the 65 Assistant Engineer (Civil) positions should be completed under the 2010 Rules. The Court emphasized that the rules in place at the time of advertisement should govern the selection process, and that changes mid-selection should not be applied unless explicitly retrospective. This decision ensures fairness and consistency in the recruitment process.