Special recruitment rules upheld where non-joinder, valid delegated power, and Employment Exchange selection were all sustained.

Challenge to a special recruitment scheme failed where the selected candidates, whose appointments were directly affected, were not impleaded, making the tribunal's decision vulnerable for non-joinder of necessary parties. The State's proviso authorising prescription of special selection criteria under the recruitment rules was upheld because it remained within valid rule-making power and did not involve excessive delegation or breach of consultation. The prescribed educational qualifications were found neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, as higher training standards were rationally linked to the post and scheme requirements. Recruitment through Employment Exchange sponsorship was also held valid in the context of a time-bound scheme, and the amendments, circulars, selections, and appointments were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the challenge to the recruitment process was vitiated by non-joinder of the selected candidates as necessary parties; (ii) whether the proviso empowering the State Government to prescribe criteria and procedure for selection in specific circumstances amounted to excessive delegation or invalidly required consultation; (iii) whether the prescribed educational qualifications were arbitrary or discriminatory; and (iv) whether inviting applications through Employment Exchanges instead of by advertisement rendered the selection procedure unfair.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the recruitment process was vitiated by non-joinder of the selected candidates as necessary parties.

Analysis: The selected and appointed candidates were directly affected by the challenge to the amendments, circulars, and selections, yet they were not impleaded before the Tribunal. A decision affecting appointments cannot be made behind the back of the persons whose rights are immediately at stake. The absence of those affected persons was a serious defect and rendered the Tribunal's decision vulnerable on that ground.

Conclusion: The challenge before the Tribunal was vitiated by non-joinder of necessary parties.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso empowering the State Government to prescribe criteria and procedure for selection in specific circumstances amounted to excessive delegation or invalidly required consultation.

Analysis: The power to prescribe special criteria and procedure remained with the rule-making authority itself, namely the State Government acting under the statutory recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The proviso operated only in specific circumstances and did not confer uncontrolled power on any subordinate authority. The consultation requirement was also satisfied on the facts, since the scheme had been considered within the departmental process and approved through the relevant governmental channel.

Conclusion: The proviso did not amount to excessive delegation and the consultation requirement was not violated.

Issue (iii): Whether the prescribed educational qualifications were arbitrary or discriminatory.

Analysis: The State justified the prescription of B.T. Certificate or B.Ed. Degree as training qualifications suited to the scheme, and explained why other training certificates were treated as inferior or not equivalent. Prescribing a higher qualification for a special recruitment scheme is not discriminatory when the classification is based on relevant training standards and the needs of the post. The Court found no violation of equality principles in preferring better-qualified candidates.

Conclusion: The prescribed qualifications were neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

Issue (iv): Whether inviting applications through Employment Exchanges instead of by advertisement rendered the selection procedure unfair.

Analysis: The procedure was adopted to meet a time-bound recruitment programme under the Operation Black Board Scheme. In the special circumstances, sponsorship through Employment Exchanges was held to be a permissible method of recruitment, and the challenge on the ground that wider advertisement ought to have been issued was not accepted. The Court found the procedure reasonable and consistent with the administrative exigency of the scheme.

Conclusion: The selection procedure based on Employment Exchange sponsorship was valid.

Final Conclusion: The amendments to the recruitment rules, the circulars prescribing selection criteria and procedure, and the resulting selections and appointments were upheld, and the Tribunal's contrary orders were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special recruitment procedure is prescribed by the State under valid rule-making power for a time-bound public scheme, and the procedure is reasonable, non-discriminatory, and supported by relevant administrative necessity, it will not be invalid merely because it departs from the ordinary mode of recruitment.

---