Supreme Court’s Stance on Fair and Transparent Recruitment in Public Services

Supreme Court’s Stance on Fair and Transparent Recruitment

 in Public Services

The Supreme Court of India has issued a definitive judgment emphasizing that the recruitment process in public services must be conducted transparently, fairly, and without discrimination. In the landmark ruling, a five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, clarified that recruitment standards, or the “rules of the game,” cannot be modified midway through the process unless permitted by relevant rules or advertisements. The judgment also upheld that eligibility and selection criteria set at the beginning of recruitment must remain consistent unless legal provisions specify otherwise.

Transparent Recruitment Process

The bench asserted that recruiting bodies must adhere strictly to established rules throughout the recruitment process. The verdict stressed:

> “The recruiting bodies, subject to extant rules, may devise an appropriate procedure…provided the procedure is transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.”

The Court further clarified that even if changes to the recruitment criteria are allowed under existing rules, such changes must align with Article 14 of the Constitution and meet the test of non-arbitrariness, ensuring no unfair advantage or disadvantage to any candidate.

Administrative Instructions and Recruitment Rules

The judgment addressed the scope of administrative instructions in filling gaps where specific recruitment rules may be absent. The Court stated that administrative instructions could supplement recruitment regulations only when:

1. Rules are Silent: When there are no explicit statutory provisions or established rules guiding the recruitment process.

2. Consistency with the Law: Such instructions must not conflict with statutory rules, the Constitution, or any binding legislation.

The Court emphasized that recruitment bodies must strictly follow existing statutory provisions, both in eligibility and procedure, where available.

No Right to Appointment for Select List Candidates

The Supreme Court held that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The ruling cited previous cases, including Shankarsan Das and Subash Chander Marwaha, to highlight that being listed as a select candidate does not guarantee an appointment. The judgment permits the state to exercise discretion in filling vacancies, stating:

> “The State or its instrumentality…may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.”

If vacancies are available and eligible candidates are in the select list, the state must justify any decision to refrain from appointments, ensuring no arbitrary denial.

The Case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Others vs Rajasthan High Court

The current case traces its origins to the matter of Tej Prakash Pathak and Others vs Rajasthan High Court. The core question before the bench was whether it is legally permissible to alter recruitment rules midway through a selection process. This five-judge bench was constituted following a referral by a smaller three-judge bench to clarify the principle in a conclusive manner.

In its decision, the Supreme Court laid out that eligibility criteria, particularly as they relate to the select list, cannot be changed unless specified within the legal framework of the recruitment process. The Court reaffirmed the principles from K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Subash Chander Marwaha v. Union of India to support that standards and eligibility, once published, cannot be arbitrarily modified.

Conclusion: Upholding Fairness in Public Recruitment

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a cornerstone in ensuring transparency and fairness in public sector recruitment. It underlines that any changes to recruitment criteria must adhere to established laws, promoting trust in public recruitment processes and protecting candidates from arbitrary rule changes. This decision strengthens the ethos of equal opportunity, impartiality, and transparency, reinforcing the recruitment system’s integrity across the public sector.