Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000054-000054 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 34981/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on recruitment law |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the High Court’s judgment; affirms the rule that eligibility criteria and benchmarks cannot change after the recruitment process begins |
| Type of Law | Administrative law; Constitutional law (Articles 14, 16, 309) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a retrospective amendment introducing additional marks and age relaxation can be applied to an ongoing recruitment process after provisional lists were published. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512; Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1; Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47; Partha Das v. State of Tripura, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Overrules | The High Court judgment in CWJC No. 18302 of 2022 is set aside. |
| Follows | K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court precedents. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reaffirmed that eligibility criteria and scoring benchmarks announced at the start of a recruitment process cannot be altered after a provisional merit list is published.
- Retrospective amendments to recruitment rules under Article 309 cannot be applied mid-process to candidates’ detriment without violating Articles 14 and 16.
- Legitimate expectations arise once criteria are advertised; candidates placed in provisional merit lists gain protection against ex post facto changes.
- Executive memos or policy resolutions cannot override statutory rules in force at the time of advertisement to the prejudice of participants.
- Recruitment authorities must prescribe any weightage or additional benchmarks before issuing advertisements or before the relevant selection stages begin.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Recruitment law framework: under Articles 14, 16 and 309, recruitment rules fixed eligibility criteria (Rules 8, 9, 12, 13 of the 2019 Rules) determining selection solely by written-exam marks.
- The 2022 Amendment Rules inserted Rule 8(5) (additional 25 marks for contractual service and age relaxation) with retrospective effect to 06.03.2019, altering the basis of selection after provisional merit lists were prepared.
- The Court applied K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash: benchmarks must be set before or at least before the relevant recruitment stage; “the rules of the game” cannot be changed once the game has begun.
- Retrospective legislative power under Article 309 cannot be used to deprive candidates of legitimate expectation or violate Articles 14 and 16.
- Executive instructions (2018 and 2021 Memos) cannot override statutory rules in force at advertisement stage to the prejudice of candidates.
- Conclusion: retrospective application of Rule 8(5) to the ongoing 2019 recruitment was impermissible; selection must be finalized under the unamended 2019 Rules.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants)
- The recruitment process was governed by the 2019 Rules as existing on the advertisement date, prescribing selection solely on written-exam marks.
- Having qualified and appeared for document verification, they acquired a legitimate expectation and vested right to be considered under the original criteria.
- Retrospective introduction of Rule 8(5) after provisional merit lists were published alters the “rules of the game” and violates Articles 14 and 16.
- Rely on K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash: once the process has commenced or a stage is reached, criteria cannot be changed.
Respondent (State of Bihar)
- The amendment was a bona fide policy decision under Article 309 to grant weightage to contractual employees in line with the 2021 Memo.
- Provisional merit lists were not indefeasible; no appointment letters had been issued, so no vested right had crystallized.
- The State has competence to amend rules retrospectively to rectify anomalies or implement policy decisions; no prejudice to appellants as minimum qualifications remained unchanged.
Factual Background
Between March 2019 and July 2022, Bihar governed recruitment for Assistant Engineers under the 2019 Rules and BPSC advertisements. A written examination was held on 12.03.2022, provisional merit lists were published June–July 2022, and document verification began. On 09.11.2022, the State issued the 2022 Amendment Rules inserting Rule 8(5) retrospectively to 06.03.2019, granting up to 25 marks for prior contractual service and age relaxation. The appellants, having already secured provisional selection under the unamended rules, challenged the retrospective application before the High Court, which dismissed their writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- 2019 Rules (under Article 309):
- Rule 8 sets eligibility (degree, age, conduct, health).
- Rule 9–12 regulate written examination and merit list based solely on total written-exam marks.
- 2022 Amendment Rules (Art. 309 proviso) inserted Rule 8(5) (“Basis of Selection”) with retrospective effect to 06.03.2019, introducing additional 25 marks for contractual experience and age relaxation.
- Supreme Court held that statutory rules in force at advertisement cannot be retrospectively altered mid-process to the detriment of candidates; retrospective power under Article 309 is limited by Articles 14 and 16.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms the principle that eligibility criteria and benchmarks must be fixed before a recruitment stage begins, as laid down in K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash.