Changing selection criteria after the commencement of the recruitment process is impermissible, reaffirming established legal principles regarding estoppel for participants of the process.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

Heard the learned counsel for appellants, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 so also learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 10.

2. This writ appeal is filed praying to set aside the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.208440/2017, insofar as rejection of prayer to quash the notification dated 09.04.2016 vide Annexure-C, Corrigendum-II dated 11.04.2016 vide Annexure-D and notification dated 15.03.2017 vide Annexure-F.

3. The prayer sought by the petitioners in the writ petition is to quash the notification dated 09.04.2016, Corrigendum-II dated 11.04.2016 and notifications dated 15.03.2017 and 04.09.2017 and eligible list dated 10.11.2017 insofar as post of Typist/Computer Operator and to direct the respondents to issue selection list to the post of Typist/Computer Operator on the basis of the notification dated 04.11.2015 by following the score card dated 20.09.2010.

4. It is contended that the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun. It is observed in the impugned order that it is settled law that changing the criteria for selection of the employees, after the commencement of the process of selection, is the trump card for the petitioners. The learned Single Judge observed that the petitioners cling to the ratio in the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of K.Manjusree, etc., vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in AIR 2008 SC 1470 and in the matter of N.T.Bevin Katti, etc., vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 1233 to justify their stand. The very arguments that changes in the selection criteria are notified and the petitioners have consciously participated in the selection process without any demur or protest and took a chance, waited for the result and now cannot turn around to say that a change in criteria midway through the selection process is impermissible, is the response of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur/appointing authority (for short, ‘University’) as against the contentions of the petitioners in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge.

5. The learned Single Judge has taken note that the other contesting respondents who apparently benefited from the changed criteria would echo the same defence and the respondents seek to take shelter under the doctrine of estoppel and contend that parties cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. The learned Single Judge also taken note that all the petitioners in the writ petitions questioned the notification dated 04.09.2017 wherein the evaluation criteria are partially changed after the examinations. The petitioners also seek writ of mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with the selection as per the evaluation criteria prescribed in the year 2010 and 2015.

6. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the dates of publication of various notifications in the writ petitions in paragraph-7 of the impugned order and we would like to extract the same for convenience of this Court and the same reads as follows: