1994 (8) TMI 302 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of amendment to qualification rules for recruitment.
2. Retrospective operation of amended rules.
3. Legitimate expectation of candidates based on original notification.
4. Application of precedent in P Mahendran v. State of Karnataka.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court considered an appeal arising from the M.P Administrative Tribunal's order directing the appellant to proceed with the selection of candidates without considering the amendment introducing B.Sc. as a qualification. The original notification for recruitment to Inspector posts in the Department of Weights and Measures in M.P. specified qualifications in Arts, Commerce, Science, Engineering, or Diploma in Engineering. Subsequently, the rules were amended to require a degree in Science with Physics, Engineering, or Technology. The Tribunal held that the amended rules should not affect the ongoing recruitment process based on the original notification.

The Court emphasized the State's power to prescribe qualifications for recruitment. It clarified that the amended rules had prospective operation and did not confer any vested rights upon candidates who had only a legitimate expectation to be considered based on the rules in place when they applied. The State was deemed entitled to withdraw the original notification and proceed with recruitment under the amended rules, as no candidate had acquired a vested right against the State.

The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent of P Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, where additional qualifications were introduced after recruitment had commenced. In that case, it was held that additional qualifications could not be applied retrospectively to ongoing recruitment. However, in the current case, the Court found that the amended rules could be applied prospectively to the recruitment process.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the State was directed to issue a fresh notification for recruitment within six weeks in accordance with the amended rules. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.