Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Akshansh Harsh, Kaveeta Wadia, Shashank Tripathi, Nitin Nautiyal
For the Respondents: Anshul Narayan, Vineeta Singh, Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Anshuman Harsh, Prem Prakash, Navin Prakash, Srishti Prakash, Smarhar Singh, Shweta Kumari, Pankaj Prakash, Manoj Kumar, Mohd Asim, Tarun Walia

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The Rules for appointment and recruitment processes must be adhered to strictly, and any benchmarks or criteria set by the competent authority should be established before the relevant stage of the process is reached (!) .

2. Participation in a recruitment process or being placed on a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. However, once a candidate has successfully cleared the written examination and has been included in the merit list based on criteria announced at the start of the process, a legitimate expectation arises that the final appointment will be made following those announced criteria (!) (!) .

3. The eligibility of candidates for appointment, especially in the context of the 2019 Rules, is determined solely based on marks obtained in the written examination. Any subsequent changes to the selection criteria, such as introducing weightage for contractual experience or age relaxations after the examination and publication of merit lists, are impermissible if they alter the fundamental basis of the selection process (!) (!) .

4. The retrospective application of amendments or rules that modify the eligibility criteria after the recruitment process has commenced and candidates have participated or been shortlisted is not permissible. Such changes should be made prior to the start of the process or before relevant stages are reached (!) (!) .

5. The process of recruitment is initiated with advertisements that specify the eligibility and selection criteria at that time. Any subsequent amendments that change these criteria after the process has begun, especially when candidates have already qualified based on the original rules, violate principles of fairness and the rights of the participating candidates (!) (!) .

6. The authority has the power to amend rules under the constitutional provisions, but such amendments cannot be applied retrospectively in a manner that disrupts or alters the outcome of an ongoing recruitment process or takes away vested rights of candidates who have already participated under the existing rules (!) (!) .

7. Changes in rules or criteria that are introduced after the initiation of the recruitment process should be implemented before the relevant stages are reached, and not after the process has significantly progressed or concluded, to prevent arbitrariness and ensure transparency (!) (!) .

8. The participation of candidates and their placement on merit lists do not create an automatic right to appointment. The final appointment depends on the fulfillment of criteria and the completion of the process in accordance with the rules that were in effect at the time of initiation (!) (!) .

9. The authority’s decision to incorporate new criteria or amendments must be consistent with constitutional principles of equality and non-arbitrariness, and should not unfairly prejudice candidates who have participated in the process based on the original criteria (!) .

10. The finalization of appointments should be based on the rules and criteria that were in place at the time the recruitment process was initiated, and any deviation from this principle can lead to invalidation of the process or the need to re-conduct the selection as per the original rules (!) .

11. The Court emphasizes that the power to amend rules, including retrospective amendments, is subject to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised to arbitrarily change the outcome of a recruitment process that has already reached its advanced stages or concluded with a merit list (!) (!) .

12. The Court has directed that the final appointment process should be completed in accordance with the original unamended rules, and the merit list should be finalized accordingly, ensuring fairness and adherence to the initial criteria (!) .

13. The ongoing legal challenges regarding the retrospective application of amendments and the validity of the rules will be further examined by the High Court, which is instructed to decide on the merits of the related writ petitions (!) .

These points collectively underscore the importance of adhering to the rules and criteria in place at the commencement of a recruitment process and caution against retrospective amendments that could unfairly alter the eligibility and merit of participating candidates.