Explore the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, clarifying the legality of altering recruitment criteria during an ongoing selection process.
Introduction
Recruitment to public posts in India must adhere to transparency, fairness, and uniformity. Any deviation from established norms can raise serious constitutional concerns. The Supreme Court’s decision in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2024) addresses one such contentious issue—whether authorities can introduce new eligibility benchmarks after the recruitment process has already begun.
Background of the Case
On 17 September 2009, the Rajasthan High Court issued a recruitment notification for 13 Translator posts under The Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002.
The rules required:
- A postgraduate degree in English Literature, and
- Three years of experience.
Candidates were also required to qualify a competitive written examination as part of the selection process.
The Legal Issue: Can Criteria Be Changed Mid-Selection?
The controversy arose when the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court introduced a 75% minimum cutoff for the written examination after the recruitment process had started.
This sudden change resulted in only 3 out of 21 candidates qualifying. The unsuccessful candidates approached the courts, arguing that:
- The new cutoff amounted to changing the “rules of the game” mid-way.
- Such a change violated the principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court’s Decision (Judgment dated November 7, 2024)
The Supreme Court firmly held that eligibility or selection criteria cannot be altered once the recruitment process is underway.
Key observations include:
- Recruitment authorities may prescribe reasonable standards to ensure merit.
- However, they cannot introduce new conditions after the process begins, as it would adversely affect candidates who applied under the original rules.
- Any such change violates the constitutional mandate of fairness and transparency.
The Court reinforced that administrative decisions impacting candidates must be predictable and non-arbitrary.
Impact and Legal Implications
The judgment has far-reaching implications for public employment and service jurisprudence:
- Protection of Candidate Rights
The decision safeguards candidates from arbitrary administrative modifications after the selection cycle has begun.
- Reinforcement of Articles 14 & 16
Fairness and equal opportunity remain central to recruitment processes, and any deviation must withstand constitutional scrutiny.
- No Automatic Right to Appointment
The Court reiterated that being in a select list does not guarantee appointment. However, the State must provide valid reasons if vacancies remain unfilled.
- Precedent for Future Recruitment Disputes
The judgment will serve as a guiding principle for courts and authorities dealing with changes to recruitment norms.
Conclusion
The Tej Prakash Pathak ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair, transparent, and rule-based recruitment practices. By disallowing post-notification changes to eligibility criteria, the Supreme Court has strengthened the legal framework governing public employment and reaffirmed constitutional guarantees for candidates across India.
Supreme Court Reiterates That Recruitment Criteria Cannot Be Changed After Final Evaluation
