2013 (3) TMI 768 - SC - Indian Laws

Change in the Eligibility / Selection criteria after conducting the examination - Application of Principle of Rules of Game - Change in the rules after the game is over - After the examination was conducted Chief Justice ordered that the examination be treated as a Competitive Examination - After change only 3 candidates were found suitable out of 21 - Changes made to be with retrospective or prospective effect? - HELD THAT - Such question arose in the context of employment under State which under the scheme of our Constitution is required to be regulated by law made under Article 309 or employment under the instrumentalities of the State which could be regulated either by statute or subordinate legislation. In either case the law dealing with the recruitment is subject to the discipline of Article 14. In the context of the employment covered by the regime of Article 309 the law the recruitment rules in theory could be either prospective or retrospective subject of course to the rule of non- arbitrariness. However in the context of employment under the instrumentalities of the State which is normally regulated by subordinate legislation such rules cannot be made retrospectively unless specifically authorised by some constitutionally valid statute. If the principle of Manjusree s case ( 2008 (2) TMI 820 - SUPREME COURT ) is applied strictly to the present case the respondent High Court is bound to recruit 13 of the best candidates out of the 21 who applied irrespective of their performance in the examination held. In such cases theoretically it is possible that candidates securing very low marks but higher than some other competing candidates may have to be appointed. In our opinion application of the principle as laid down in Manjusree case (supra) without any further scrutiny would not be in the larger public interest or the goal of establishing an efficient administrative machinery. No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the rules of the game insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in the case of C. Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore 1964 (9) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT . in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the rules of the game stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court. We therefore order that the matter be placed before the Hon ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the principle of not altering the criteria for selection after the process has commenced applies to employment under the State or its instrumentalities.
2. Whether changing the rules of the game after the game is played is impermissible in the context of recruitment processes.
3. Whether altering the eligibility criteria or selection procedure by the State or its instrumentalities is permissible under the law.

Issue 1:
The judgment addresses the principle that the criteria for selection cannot be altered once the selection process has begun in the context of employment under the State or its instrumentalities. The Court emphasizes the need for an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench on what constitutes the unchangeable 'rules of the game' in such scenarios.

Issue 2:
The case involves a recruitment process by the respondent High Court for Translators, where the Chief Justice ordered a minimum qualifying mark of 75% for selection after the examination was conducted. This decision was challenged as altering the rules after the game was played, contrary to the existing Service Rules. The Court delves into the legality of such alterations and the implications of changing the rules mid-process.

Issue 3:
The judgment explores the legal relationship between employer and employee in the context of employment under the State. It distinguishes between employment regulated by statutory provisions under Article 309 and employment under instrumentalities of the State governed by subordinate legislation. The Court examines the permissibility of retrospective changes to recruitment rules, highlighting the importance of non-arbitrariness and adherence to constitutional rights like Articles 14 and 16.

The Court references various cases where alterations to eligibility criteria or selection procedures were challenged, emphasizing the need for a balance between maintaining high standards of competence and ensuring fairness in recruitment processes. It discusses the applicability of the principle laid down in previous judgments, such as the case of Subash Chander Marwaha, where the fixing of a higher score for selection was upheld to maintain competence standards.

In light of the conflicting decisions and the importance of clarity on altering selection procedures, the Court directs the matter to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. This decision underscores the significance of a definitive pronouncement by a larger Bench on the permissible scope of changing recruitment rules and criteria in the context of employment under the State or its instrumentalities.