Legal ruling: Changing recruitment criteria mid-process deemed impermissible. Upholding standards in state employment

The Court emphasized that altering selection criteria after the process has commenced in employment under the State or its instrumentalities is impermissible. In a case involving a High Court's recruitment process for Translators, changing rules post-examination was deemed contrary to existing Service Rules. The judgment highlighted the need for clarity on permissible alterations to recruitment rules, directing the matter to the Chief Justice of India for further consideration. The decision underscores the importance of upholding competence standards while ensuring fairness in recruitment processes under the State or its instrumentalities.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the principle of not altering the criteria for selection after the process has commenced applies to employment under the State or its instrumentalities.
2. Whether changing the rules of the game after the game is played is impermissible in the context of recruitment processes.
3. Whether altering the eligibility criteria or selection procedure by the State or its instrumentalities is permissible under the law.

Issue 1:
The judgment addresses the principle that the criteria for selection cannot be altered once the selection process has begun in the context of employment under the State or its instrumentalities. The Court emphasizes the need for an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench on what constitutes the unchangeable 'rules of the game' in such scenarios.

Issue 2:
The case involves a recruitment process by the respondent High Court for Translators, where the Chief Justice ordered a minimum qualifying mark of 75% for selection after the examination was conducted. This decision was challenged as altering the rules after the game was played, contrary to the existing Service Rules. The Court delves into the legality of such alterations and the implications of changing the rules mid-process.

Issue 3:
The judgment explores the legal relationship between employer and employee in the context of employment under the State. It distinguishes between employment regulated by statutory provisions under Article 309 and employment under instrumentalities of the State governed by subordinate legislation. The Court examines the permissibility of retrospective changes to recruitment rules, highlighting the importance of non-arbitrariness and adherence to constitutional rights like Articles 14 and 16.

The Court references various cases where alterations to eligibility criteria or selection procedures were challenged, emphasizing the need for a balance between maintaining high standards of competence and ensuring fairness in recruitment processes. It discusses the applicability of the principle laid down in previous judgments, such as the case of Subash Chander Marwaha, where the fixing of a higher score for selection was upheld to maintain competence standards.

In light of the conflicting decisions and the importance of clarity on altering selection procedures, the Court directs the matter to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. This decision underscores the significance of a definitive pronouncement by a larger Bench on the permissible scope of changing recruitment rules and criteria in the context of employment under the State or its instrumentalities.

---