Can Recruitment Rules for Eligibility Be Amended Midway? High Court Affirms Applicability of Amended Qualifications to Ongoing Selection Processes

The High Court reaffirmed that a State Government can amend eligibility criteria for public recruitment even after the issuance of an advertisement if no selection has been finalized. Such amendments, when made prior to the completion of the recruitment process, do not operate retrospectively or violate any vested rights of candidates. This judgment upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority within Chhattisgarh for public employment recruitments.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reaffirms that no vested right accrues to applicants merely by the publication of a recruitment advertisement or submission of an application if the selection process remains incomplete.
• Clarifies that amended eligibility criteria can be applied to ongoing (but incomplete) recruitment processes, including to advertisements that have been suspended or kept in abeyance, provided no final selection/appointment has been made.
• Confirms that the Public Service Commission must conform to rules as they exist on the date of examination—not as at the date of advertisement—if the selection process was not completed.
• Judicial finality bars repeated litigation on identical issues once a coordinate bench has adjudicated upon them.
• Corrigenda aligning advertisements with prevailing rules do not constitute unlawful retrospective application if the process is pending.
• Lawyers must carefully distinguish between completed selections (where amended rules may not apply) and pending/incomplete ones (where new rules can be applied).

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The Court recognized that advertisement and receipt of applications alone do not create an enforceable right to be considered under unamended rules if the recruitment process remains incomplete.
• It relied on the previous coordinate bench ruling in WPS No.2966/2025, which upheld the State’s power to amend recruitment rules before selections are finalized, in pursuance of administrative policy to enhance standards.
• The Bench emphasized that judicial finality applies; identical contentions cannot be re-agitated by changing the form of proceedings.
• It found the 2022 recruitment process was kept in abeyance and never completed; thus, no vested or accrued rights existed.
• The Public Service Commission is required to conduct selection in accordance with rules as on the date of examination, and any corrigendum issued to update eligibility in line with amended rules is not retrospective action, but a necessary alignment.
• The challenge to “retrospective” application was rejected: since selection had not occurred, only the prevailing rules would govern.
• Allegations of arbitrariness, lack of bona fides, or violation of constitutional rights were not substantiated.
• The policy decision to revise eligibility was deemed a matter of executive prerogative, justiciable only if proven arbitrary, which was not demonstrated.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• Amendment to eligibility criteria after advertisement and closure of applications is impermissible.
• The 2022 advertisement created a vested right to consideration under the prevailing rules for diploma holders.
• The retrospective application of the amended rules (via corrigendum) is arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 16, 21, and 309 of the Constitution.
• The corrigendum was issued several years after the original advertisement and without fresh notification, thus prejudicing applicants.
• Other departments continue to accept Diploma holders in similar posts, making the new qualification discriminatory for equivalent posts.

State/Respondents

• Amendment to rules is a policy matter, meant to raise professional standards; no candidate gets a vested right from an advertisement or application.
• Employer (State) can alter recruitment rules any time before the selection process is completed.
• Corrigendum rightly issued to conform the recruitment notification to the prevailing (amended) rules.
• Amendment is prospective; but since the selection was still incomplete, applying the revised qualification is legal and non-retrospective.

Public Service Commission (PSC)

• The issue has already been adjudicated by coordinate benches (WPS No.2966/2025 and WPS No.3201/2025); new proceedings are thus barred by judicial finality.
• As a statutory body, PSC is bound to apply rules as in force on the date of examination, not as were in force at advertisement.

Factual Background

The petitioners, Diploma holders in Mining Engineering, applied for 35 posts of Mining Inspector pursuant to an advertisement dated 02.02.2022, which at that time permitted a degree in Science with Geology or a Diploma in Mining Engineering as minimum qualification. The process was stayed by the department in March 2022 and was not resumed. On 13.03.2024, recruitment rules amended the qualification to require a Bachelor’s Degree in Mining Engineering. On 02.04.2025, a corrigendum substituted the new qualification into the original advertisement. Petitioners challenged the amendment and corrigendum, claiming loss of a vested right and discrimination; however, similar petitions had already been dismissed previously by coordinate benches.

Statutory Analysis

• Discussion centered on the Chhattisgarh (Class III Executive, Geology and Mining Service Recruitment) Rules, 2008 as amended on 13.03.2024.
• Amendment omitted references to Diploma in Mining Engineering, substituting with “Bachelor degree in Mining Engineering” as minimum required qualification.
• The Court clarified that statutory and recruitment rules can be amended by the State at any point prior to completion of selection, subject to constitutional limitations.
• The Public Service Commission is mandated to act in accordance with the rules as they stand on the date of actual selection/examination.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.

Procedural Innovations

• None recorded in the judgment. The decision follows existing procedural standards, referencing judicial finality and reliance on earlier intra-court appeals.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – The Division Bench affirms and applies decisions of coordinate benches of the same High Court, reinforcing established law on the State’s right to amend recruitment rules prior to completed selection.