Question 1

The government is strictly banned from ever changing recruitment rules after a notification is released.

Accepted Answer

Rules can be modified midway if the original recruitment notification or existing statutory service rules explicitly reserve the right and authorize such changes.

Question 2

If your name appears on the final merit or select list, you have a fundamental right to be appointed.

Accepted Answer

Inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment; the State can choose not to fill vacancies for bona fide reasons.

Question 3

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's November 2024 judgment in the Tej Prakash Pathak case:
1. The Court ruled that the recruitment process is deemed to commence from the date the final merit list is published.
2. The judgment affirmed the legal principles laid down in the 2008 K. Manjusree case.
3. The Court held that a candidate's inclusion in the final select list confers an absolute, indefeasible right to appointment.
How many of the statements given above are correct?

Accepted Answer

(a) Only one — Only statement 2 is correct. The Court explicitly upheld the K. Manjusree precedent. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Court defined the recruitment process as commencing from the issuance of the advertisement, not the merit list. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Court reiterated that placement in a select list does not give a candidate an indefeasible right to employment, as the State can choose not to fill vacancies for bona fide reasons.

Question 4

Match the following legal concepts/cases (List I) with their central principles as discussed in the Tej Prakash Pathak judgment context (List II):

List I:
A. K. Manjusree Case (2008)
B. Subash Chander Marwaha Case (1973)
C. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
D. Article 16

List II:
1. State's right to set higher standards or not fill vacancies in public interest.
2. Guarantee of equal opportunity in matters of public employment.
3. Prohibition of altering recruitment criteria mid-selection ('rules of the game').
4. Administrative fairness protecting a citizen's anticipated benefit from a public authority.

Select the correct code:

Accepted Answer

(a) A-3, B-1, C-4, D-2 — A matches 3: K. Manjusree established that recruitment criteria cannot change mid-selection. B matches 1: Subash Chander Marwaha established that the State can set higher standards and is not forced to appoint candidates just because they met minimum marks. C matches 4: The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation protects a citizen's anticipated benefit from a public authority's consistent past practice or promise. D matches 2: Article 16 provides equal opportunity in public employment.

Question 5

Assertion (A): Altering eligibility criteria midway through a recruitment process is considered a violation of Article 16 of the Constitution.
Reason (R): Altering the rules mid-process deprives potential candidates, who would have been eligible under the new criteria, of the opportunity to apply.
Select the correct answer:

Accepted Answer

(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A. — Both statements are correct. The Supreme Court in the Tej Prakash Pathak case explicitly reasoned that if a public authority changes the eligibility criteria after the advertisement deadline has passed, it violates Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment). This is because candidates who might have qualified under the altered, newer criteria never got the chance to apply, making the process exclusionary and unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Ruling on Altering Recruitment Rules Midway

Parliament Passes Banking Laws Bill