The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that changing eligibility criteria for recruitment by amending service rules after an initial advertisement but before actual commencement of the recruitment process (i.e., before call for subject-wise applications) does not amount to impermissibly changing the “rules of the game” midway, provided the amended rules are in force when the effective recruitment process begins. This judgment upholds Supreme Court precedent and is binding on subordinate courts in Assam.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/2353/2025 of ABDUS SALAM MAZARBHUIYA AND ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS |
| CNR | GAHC010090762025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble The Chief Justice Mr. Ashutosh Kumar |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Hon’ble The Chief Justice Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court’s precedent (Tej Prakash Pathak, K. Majusree) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Recruitment Law (Education Sector) |
| Questions of Law | Whether amending service rules after an initial advertisement but before the actual recruitment process commences amounts to unlawful change of “rules of game” |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that where an initial advertisement merely intonates likely vacancies and does not invite subject-wise applications (with eligibility criteria to be specified later), and the service rules are amended before the issuance of a specific addendum calling for applications, the amended eligibility criteria do not amount to changing the “rules of the game” midway. The recruitment process, for legal purposes, is deemed to commence only with the issuance of the addendum containing detailed criteria, not the earlier general advertisement. Amended rules as in force at such date are thus applicable. Setting eligibility criteria is primarily within governmental domain, subject to Article 14 and non-arbitrariness. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Recruitment process legally commences with detailed call for applications; interim advertisements with intent to notify further details do not trigger application of then‐existent eligibility conditions. Decisions on eligibility fall to the government’s expert judgment, subject only to Article 14’s prohibition on arbitrariness. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners challenged an amendment to Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018, raising the qualification for Mathematics Graduate Teacher to require Honours/Major in Mathematics or a related post-graduation, applied retrospectively via an addendum to an earlier general advertisement. Petitioners argued this was changing the rules during the recruitment process. Court found no process had yet commenced under law, as no subject‐wise applications had been called for at the time of amendment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India, and may be cited before the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that for recruitment, the “rules of the game” are those in force when applications are called for, not at the time of earlier notifications or advertisements that explicitly defer subject‐wise details.
- Clarifies that a general/intimatory advertisement that does not specify eligibility or call for subject‐wise application does not trigger application of prevailing rules as at that juncture.
- Government’s discretion to amend eligibility, if exercised before the actual recruitment process commences (such as in issuance of addendum detailing posts and eligibility), is valid so long as it is not arbitrary.
- The decision confirms and applies recent Supreme Court authority, allowing lawyers to use this as binding precedent in similar factual scenarios.
- Highlights that eligibility requirement amendments, if rational and in public interest, will not be interfered with.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed Supreme Court decisions (K. Majusree; Tej Prakash Pathak) confirming that “rules of the game” set at the commencement of recruitment cannot generally be changed midway.
- However, it found that the December 2023 advertisement here was only a preliminary notification—it did not specify subject‐wise posts and stated that details would follow.
- The Court held that only with the addendum (October 2024), which provided subject/district‐wise details and eligibility criteria, did the actual recruitment process commence for legal purposes.
- Since the amendment to the Service Rules (August 2024) predated this addendum, the amended rules were operative at recruitment start.
- Setting eligibility is fundamentally within executive domain, subject only to Article 14 (non‐arbitrariness).
- Consequently, petitioners’ challenge failed; there was no “midway change” as the process had not legally commenced.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The initial advertisement (December 2023) contained no specialized eligibility for Mathematics teachers, so the amendment and addendum introducing new qualifications alters the “rules of the game” midway.
- Cited K. Majusree and Tej Prakash Pathak to argue that eligibility cannot be changed after process commencement—deeming commencement to be the first advertisement.
Respondent (State)
- Argued the first advertisement was merely a notification; it expressly stated subject‐wise details and application dates would be subsequently notified.
- Recruitment process, for legal purposes, commenced only with issuance of the addendum, by which time the amended Rules were in force.
- Amendment to eligibility was aimed at improvement in education and made after due process.
Factual Background
A general advertisement was issued in December 2023 to fill teacher posts under the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018, specifying generic eligibility and percentage marks, with no detailed subject‐wise or district‐wise breakdown or eligibility. This advertisement explicitly stated that such details, including application timelines, would be notified later. In August 2024, before inviting applications, the government amended the Rules to require specialization for Mathematics teachers. An addendum in October 2024 notified the subject‐wise posts and imposed the new eligibility. Aggrieved, the petitioners (potential candidates) challenged the amendment and addendum as illegal change of rules after purported process commencement.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 309 of the Constitution: Service Rules (including eligibility) are issued/amended by the Government under this Article.
- Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018: Eligibility criteria for Graduate Teachers, later amended in August 2024 to require Honours/Major or PG degree in Mathematics for the Mathematics teacher posts.
- The Court interpreted the rules’ commencement for recruitment to mean the notification (addendum) that for the first time details posts, eligibility, and timelines, not a general pre‐notification.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were delivered. Judgment is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
None indicated by the Court. The judgment followed the established petition procedure, with no new rules for maintainability, locus or evidence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment faithfully applies and explains existing Supreme Court authority (K. Majusree; Tej Prakash Pathak) regarding commencement of recruitment processes and application of eligibility criteria.