More Stories

Informist, Thursday, Nov. 7, 2024

 

--SC: Eligibility rules on public post appointments can't be changed midway 

 

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that eligibility rules for appointments to public posts cannot be changed midway, and can only be done if extant rules prescribe so. The top court said that even the extant rule has to meet the standard of Article 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. Extant rules with statutory force must not be arbitrary, the court said.

 

The court said the object of the process of selection was to see that the most suitable candidate was chosen and a degree of discretion is needed to be left with the employer for the best choice. "Thus, in our view, the appointing or recruiting authority in absence of rules can devise a process with benchmarks such as written test and interviews which should be informed before," said the court. But if the rules prescribe that such benchmarks can be set at various stages of the recruitment process, then the same can be done before the process comes to an end, the court added.

 

"In absence of any rules, the selector can devise the rules for selection, which need to be framed before the stage of selection, so neither the candidate or interviewer is taken by surprise," the court said.

 

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said that placement on the select list does not give absolute right to employment. The top court affirmed its 2008 judgement, which had said that the rules of the game couldn't be changed midway. The 2008 verdict "is good law" and "not incorrect", said the Bench, which also comprised Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P.S. Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra. 

 

The case has its genesis in a 2009 notification of the Rajasthan High Court for filing 13 vacant posts for translators. The notification issued under Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, required candidates to appear for written examination, followed by a personal interview. However, after the two steps were completed, then chief justice of the high court Jagadish Bhalla decided that the candidates should score 75% or above in their examination to be selected for the post. This meant that only three of the 21 candidates were selected.

 

Consequently, three unsuccessful candidates moved the Rajasthan High Court against the chief justice's decision. The high court rejected the candidates' plea, after which the petitioners moved the apex court. They argued that introducing a 75% cut-off after the recruitment process was started amounted to changing the rules of the games after the game was played. The petitioners said that the chief justice's decision was not authorised by valid statute and violated the Right to Equality and Right to Discrimination. In 2013, a three-judge Bench hearing the case referred the issues to a five-judge Constitution Bench.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Avishek Dutta

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd, a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2024. All rights reserved.