Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Neetu Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika, Adv. Mrs. Razia Beg, Adv. Ms. Bobby Anand, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Bansalv, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Adv. Mr. Tribhuwan Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Tribhuvan Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rameshkunal Choksi Chandra, Adv. Mr. Mohan Kumar, AOR Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aakash Lodha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Ms. Rashika Swarup, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR

Question 1? What is the rule regarding whether eligibility criteria for placement in the select list can be changed after the recruitment process has commenced? Question 2? What is the proper scope of "rules of the game" for recruitment, and how do Articles 14 and 16 interact with changes to selection procedures mid-process? Question 3? What rights do candidates have regarding appointment from a select list when vacancies exist, and can the state deny appointment after placement in the list?

Key Points: - The recruitment process starts with advertisement and ends with filling vacancies. (!) - Eligibility criteria for placement in the select list cannot be changed midway; changes must align with extant rules/advertisement and satisfy non-arbitrariness under Article 14. (!) - The court affirms K. Manjusree doctrine that changing selection benchmarks after completion of the process is impermissible; but allows certain flexibility for procedure/benchmarks if set before commencement or per rules. (!) (!) - The State/instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate; however placement in the select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment. (!) (!) - Where rules are silent, administrative instructions may supplement; where rules cover the field, they must be followed. (!) (!) - The decision not to fill vacancies must be bonafide with regard to merit; upper standards may be applied but not retroactively. (!) (!) - Substantive conclusions: (1) recruitment process ends with filling vacancies; (2) eligibility for placement cannot be altered mid-process; (3) Manjusree vs. Subash Chander Marwaha are distinct on right to placement vs. appointment; (4) procedure for selection may be devised but must be transparent and non-arbitrary. (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

What is the rule regarding whether eligibility criteria for placement in the select list can be changed after the recruitment process has commenced?

Question 2?

What is the proper scope of "rules of the game" for recruitment, and how do Articles 14 and 16 interact with changes to selection procedures mid-process?

Question 3?

What rights do candidates have regarding appointment from a select list when vacancies exist, and can the state deny appointment after placement in the list?