The court ruled that recruitment rules existing at the time of advertisement govern terms of appointment, and any retrospective application of subsequent rules is unconstitutional and violates the principle of equal protection under the law.

Order :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Since all the writ petitions involve a common question of law and are founded on similar facts and circumstances, they have been clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common order. This approach has been adopted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure uniformity and consistency in the adjudication of the issues involved.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in applying the subsequent notifications dated 28.07.2020 and 29.07.2020 retrospectively to the vacancies advertised on 09.03.2019 by contending that the said notifications are prospective in nature and could not have been made applicable to the recruitment process initiated under the advertisement dated 09.03.2019. Accordingly, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities to modify their appointment orders in accordance with the Rules and instructions prevailing on the date of the advertisement and on the date when the vacancies actually arose, i.e., 09.03.2019. It is further contended that as per the Rules existing at the time of advertisement, the probation period for the post in question was two years. However, by virtue of the subsequent notifications dated 28.07.2020 and 29.07.2020, the probation period was extended to three years. Since the petitioners’ appointments are pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.03.2019, the conditions introduced through the later notifications regarding the extended probation period are not applicable to them. Therefore, the probation period in the petitioners’ case ought to be treated as two years instead of three years. Hence, all these writ petitions have been preferred.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, Writ Petition (S) No. 6436 of 2021 has been treated as the lead case, and the facts of the said petition are being referred to for the purpose of adjudication. The decision rendered herein shall, however, govern all the connected writ petitions as well, as the issues raised therein are identical in nature.

4. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioners, are that an advertisement was issued on 09.03.2019 inviting applications for recruitment to various teaching posts, namely Assistant Teacher, Teacher, and Lecturer under the School Education Department. The said recruitment was conducted in accordance with the prevailing recruitment rules and guidelines then in force. In pursuance of the said advertisement, all the petitioners, being eligible in terms of educational qualification, age, and other prescribed criteria, duly submitted their applications and successfully participated in the selection process. Upon completion of the recruitment process, they were selected and appointed to their respective posts as mentioned in the cause title of the petition.

5. It is stated that prior to the issuance of the aforesaid advertisement, several of the petitioners were already serving in various capacities under the State Government, including as Teacher (L.B.) Cadre, Supervisor (Women and Child Development Department), Assistant Veterinary Field Officer (AVFO), Assistant Development Extension Officer (ADEO) and other equivalent posts. After obtaining proper No Objection Certificates from their respective departments, they applied for the said recruitment and, upon selection, tendered formal resignations from their earlier posts before joining their new appointments under the Teacher Cadre. The petitioners submit that, as per the then prevailing rules and circulars dated 03.09.2018, candidates appointed under such recruitment were to be placed on probation for a period of two years and were entitled to receive the minimum basic pay of the post to which they were appointed. These were the governing conditions of service at the time when the advertisement was issued and the recruitment process was initiated. However, at the time of issuing the appointment orders, the respondents applied the provisions of a sub