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 and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash Pathak, disallows retrospective rule change |
| Type of Law | Administrative & Constitutional (public service recruitment) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the Bihar Government could apply the 2022 Amendment Rules (introducing weightage and age-relaxation) retrospectively to a recruitment process already initiated under the 2019 Rules. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The selection criteria for public recruitment, as fixed at the time of the advertisement under statutory rules, cannot be changed after the process has commenced; eligibility and marks-weightage announced initially form the “rules of the game” and create a legitimate expectation. A retrospective amendment to reduce the examination weightage from 100 to 75 and introduce 25 marks for contractual experience, applied after provisional merit lists and document verification, arbitrarily alters the basis of selection and violates Articles 14 and 16. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellants qualified a written examination under the Bihar Engineering Services Class II Recruitment Rules, 2019 and appeared for document verification based on provisional merit lists published June–July 2022. In November 2022 the State issued retrospective Amendment Rules w.e.f. 06.03.2019 introducing Rule 8(5) to grant up to 25 marks and age relaxation for contractual experience. The appellants challenged application of Rule 8(5) to an ongoing process. The High Court upheld the amendment; this appeal was allowed by setting aside retrospective effect. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and High Courts in recruitment challenges |
| Overrules | State practice of applying retrospective contract-experience weightage in ongoing recruitments |
| Distinguishes | Cases where rules explicitly permit mid-process changes under extant statute or advertisement |
| Follows | K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.; Tej Prakash v. Rajasthan High Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that eligibility criteria and marks-weightage announced in a recruitment advertisement under statutory rules cannot be altered once the selection process (written exam and provisional list publication) has commenced.
- Confirms that bona fide policy amendments, even if under Article 309, cannot retrospectively disrupt an ongoing process to the prejudice of candidates’ legitimate expectation.
- Clarifies that a “provisional” merit list is not subject to fundamental reshaping of selection benchmarks post-declaration.
- Reinforces the binding nature of K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash Pathak in challenges to mid-process rule changes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The 2019 Rules (Rules 8, 9, 12, 13) prescribed selection solely on total marks in the written examination; no weightage or age relaxation for contractual experience.
- The recruitment process launched through Advertisements on 06.03.2019 proceeded with a written exam (12.03.2022) and provisional merit lists (June–July 2022) followed by document verification.
- November 2022 Amendment Rules introduced Rule 8(5) (75 marks exam + 25 marks for contract service; age relaxation) retrospectively w.e.f. 06.03.2019.
- Court applied the “rules of the game” doctrine (K. Manjusree) and Tej Prakash’s benchmark-setting principles: eligibility must be fixed pre-process or at latest before the relevant stage.
- Retrospective amendment altered the basis of selection mid-stream, infringing Articles 14 and 16 and legitimate expectation.
- Provisional merit lists had achieved binding effect for candidates’ placement; retrospective change to criteria is arbitrary and unlawful.
- State’s reliance on executive memos (2018, 2021) could not override statutory rules in force at advertisement date.
- Remedy: finalize appointments per unamended 2019 Rules within two months.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Eligibility and selection criteria are fixed at advertisement stage; 2019 Rules provided no weightage or age relaxation.
- Once candidates cleared the written exam and provisional list published, vested rights and legitimate expectation arose.
- Retrospective amendment after document verification arbitrarily alters merit order; violates Articles 14 and 16.
- Reliance on “rules of the game” doctrine (K. Manjusree; Tej Prakash).
Respondent
- Amendment was a bona fide policy decision under Article 309 and proviso; included weightage for contractual service per 2021 General Administration Memo.
- Provisional merit list conferred no indefeasible right; appointments not finalized.
- No prejudice as minimum qualifications unchanged; process not complete until appointment letters issued.
Factual Background
The Road Construction Department, Bihar, notified 2019 Rules for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers. BPSC held a written exam (12.03.2022), published provisional merit lists in June–July 2022, and began document verification. In November 2022 the State issued retrospective Amendment Rules (w.e.f. 06.03.2019) inserting Rule 8(5) to grant contractual employees up to 25 additional marks and age relaxation. Candidates who had secured provisional merit positions challenged retrospective application of the amendment to the ongoing process. The High Court dismissed their writ petition; this appeal upheld the challenge.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 8 (2019 Rules): eligibility criteria—degree, age, conduct, health; temporary/probationary govt employees eligible equally; no contractual weightage.
- Rule 9–13: procedure for direct recruitment—competitive exam, total marks basis, publication of merit list.
- Rule 8(5) (2022 Amendment): retrospective insertion—basis of selection = 75 marks written exam + 25 marks for contractual work experience; age relaxation equivalent to contract tenure; retrospective w.e.f. 06.03.2019.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed