IMPORTANT POINT
The principle that candidates do not acquire a vested right to appointment but have a legitimate expectation to be evaluated according to the rules in effect at the time of their application, and that changes to selection criteria after the process has commenced are impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.

The above appeals arise from a common judgment in a batch of writ petitions which challenged the second advertisement issued for selection of Auxiliary NurseMidwife (ANM); by changing the procedure of selection as prescribed in the Bihar Lady Health Worker (ANM) Cadre Rules, 2018 (the Rules of 2018, for brevity). The first advertisement was issued based on the Rules of 2018 and before the selection was concluded, the impugned advertisement was issued in consonance with the new Rules promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India; termed the Bihar Lady Health Worker (ANM) Cadre Rules, 2023 (for short ‘the Rules of 2023’).

2. The procedure of selection was the only change made in the second advertisement; abandoning the marks awarded to the basic qualification of ANM, stipulating in its place a competitive test. All the other parameters with respect to essential qualification, age, relaxation in age, cutoff date for acquisition of qualification as also the marks provided for higher qualification and experience remained the same. The learned Single Judge interfered with the second advertisement and selection procedure on the ground that there is a ‘change of rule midway’ in the selection; based on various authorities.

3. The State is aggrieved with the interference caused and has filed the appeals from the impugned judgment. Some of the persons, who applied under the second advertisement have also filed an appeal, since they had not applied under the earlier advertisement and if the second advertisement is set aside, they would lose their eligibility to participate in the selection process.

4. Learned Advocate General, Sri P.K. Shahi, who appeared for the State pointed out that there was absolutely no prejudice caused to the persons, who applied under the earlier advertisement. The first advertisement admittedly was issued under the Rules of 2018 and the procedure of recruitment contemplated 60 marks to be awarded for the ANM qualification, 15 marks for any higher qualification and 25 marks for working experience. While, the process of selection was ongoing, the new Rules came into force in the year 2023. The only change, insofar as the marks for ANM qualification being abandoned in favour of a competitive examination, was a policy decision of the Government stemming from past experience in recruitments, considering the marks obtained for the essential qualification. The Government realized that selection on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying exams does not enable an accurate assessment of the actual worth of a candidate. The candidate’s eligibility for appointment has to be evaluated through a competitive test; which would ensure a fair assessment and evaluation of the suitability of the candidate who has acquired the essential qualification.

5. The State, as a general policy has amended all the recruitment rules to ensure skill/competitive test being made the basis of selection and appointment. Merely because a competitive test was introduced and there was a fresh advertisement made; wherein it was specifically stipulated that the earlier applicants will also be participated in the selection process and they need not apply again; there cannot be alleged any prejudice. The earlier applicants cannot have any grievance and the only prejudice, if at all can be alleged, is the enhancement of the number of applicants; who also have to satisfy the essential criteria as per the earlier notification, since the Rules of 2018 & that of 2023 are identical on that aspect.

6. The learned Advocate General urged that the employer has the plenary power to decide on the eligibility and the manner in which a selection for appointment has to be proceeded with. Reliance was placed on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar & Ors.; 2022 SCC Online SC 1706 to assert the said power and draw a distinction from the decision in K. Manjusree v. The State of A.P. & Anr.; (2008) 3 SCC 512. A.A. Calton v. Di