Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2024 INSC 847)

TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK & ORS. vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 28 2024 INSC 847

(CIVIL APPEAL /2634/2013)

07 NOVEMBER 2024

Acts: Constitution of India; Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules 2002; Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991.

Bench: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra (5 Judges)

Legal Doctrine on Recruitment Processes: A Refined Overview

1. Commencement and Conclusion of Recruitment

The recruitment process begins with the issuance of an advertisement and concludes with the filling of notified vacancies. This process involves key steps:

• Inviting applications.
• Scrutiny and rejection of defective or ineligible applications.
• Conducting examinations, interviews, or viva voce.
• Preparing the final list of candidates for appointment.
  [Para 13]

2. Doctrine Against Changing ‘Rules of the Game’

• The principle against altering the “rules of the game” during or after the recruitment process is rooted in Article 14 of the Constitution, which prohibits arbitrariness. Article 16, a subset of Article 14, ensures equality in public employment.
• Changes to eligibility criteria or procedures are permissible only if allowed by:
  1. Extant Rules or
  2. Advertisements are not contrary to Extant Rules.
• Such changes must also meet the standard of fairness under Article 14 and avoid arbitrariness.
  [Paras 14, 42(2)]

3. Consistency with Precedent (K. Manjusree Case)

• The ruling in K. Manjusree ([2008] 2 SCR 1025) aligns with earlier precedents. It emphasizes that benchmarks or criteria for selection stages cannot be introduced post-facto.
• K. Manjusree addresses the right to inclusion in a select list, differing from Subash Chander Marwaha, which concerns the right to appointment from the select list.
  [Paras 18, 30, 42(3)]

4. Discretion of Recruiting Bodies

• Recruiting bodies may devise procedures to conclude recruitment, provided they:
  • Adhere to Extant Rules.
  • Are transparent, non-discriminatory, and rationally connected to their objectives.
    [Para 42(4)]

5. Adherence to Extant Rules

• Extant Rules, having statutory authority, must be followed.
• In the absence of Rules or where gaps exist, administrative instructions may supplement but cannot override statutory provisions.
  [Paras 39, 42(5)]

6. Placement in the Select List and Right to Appointment

• Inclusion in the select list does not guarantee an appointment.
• The State can decline to fill vacancies for valid reasons, but such decisions must not be arbitrary. The burden of justification lies with the State when appointments are challenged.
  [Para 40]

7. Legitimate Expectation and Public Interest

• Candidates expect fairness and non-arbitrariness in recruitment.
• However, this expectation is subject to the discretion of public authorities, who may prioritize public interest over individual claims. Courts respect such decisions unless they are manifestly arbitrary.
  [Para 16]

In light of the decision in Shankarsan Das ([1991] 2 SCR 567), a candidate placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available. Similar was the view taken by this Court in Subash Chander Marwaha where against 15 vacancies only top 7 from the select list were appointed. But there is a caveat. The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State’s action in respect of denying appointment to a selected candidate, the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the Select List.

Conclusion

The recruitment process must align with principles of equality and fairness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Transparency, adherence to statutory rules, and the prohibition against arbitrary changes ensure that public employment selections are equitable and merit-based.

Case Law

K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. [2008] 2 SCR 1025 : (2008) 3 SCC 512 – held good law.

Sivanandan CT & Ors. v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. [2023] 11 SCR 674: 2023 INSC 709 – followed.

Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi [2010] 2 SCR 256 : (2010) 3 SCC 104; K. H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. [2006] Supp. 2 SCR 790 : (2006) 6 SCC 395; M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar [1994] Supp. 3 SCR 665 : (1994) 6 SCC 293; Union of India v. T. Sundararaman [1997] 3 SCR 792 : (1997) 4 SCC 664; Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B. [2008] 15 SCR 194 : (2009) 1 SCC 768; Salam Samarjeet Singh v. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr. [2024] 8 SCR 885: 2024 INSC 647 – relied on.

State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [1974] 1 SCR 165 : (1974) 3 SCC 220; Tej Prakash Pathak & Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others (2013) 4 SCC 540; Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar [2003] 3 SCR 796 : (2003) 9 SCC 519; Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and Others [2009] 2 SCR 907 : (2009) 4 SCC 555; A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra [1990] 2 SCR 463 : (1990) 2 SCC 669; Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi [2010] 2 SCR 239 : (2010) 2 SCC 637; E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. [1974] 2 SCR 348 : (1974) 4 SCC 3; State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. [2020] 14 SCR 45 : (2023) 10 SCC 634; Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [1991] 2 SCR 567 : (1991) 3 SCC 47; All India SC & ST Employees Association v. A. Arthur Jeen & Others [2001] 2 SCR 1183 : (2001) 6 SCC 380; M. Ramesh v. Union of India [2018] 6 SCR 763 : (2018) 16 SCC 195; P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [1984] 2 SCR 200 : (1984) 2 SCC 141; Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi [2008] 5 SCR 1066 : (2008) 7 SCC 11; Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 657 : (1985) 4 SCC 417; Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Others [1982] 1 SCR 320 : (1981) 4 SCC 159; Santosh Kumar Tripathi v. U.P. Power Corporation (2009) 14 SCC 210; Banking Service Recruitment Board, Madras v. V. Ramalingam (1998) 8 SCC 523 – referred to.