Changes to selection criteria post-application process must not violate advertised conditions; clarity in rules ensures fairness in recruitment.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--By this order, I shall decide Review Petition No. 119/2021 in W.P.(C) No. 6500/2021, W.P.(C) 9753/2021 and W.P.(C) No. 9925/2021.

Rev. Pet. 119/2021 in W.P.(C) 6500/2021

2. The review petition has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6500/2021 seeking review of order dated July 16, 2021 whereby this Court has dismissed the writ petition on the only challenge urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. The review is being sought on the ground that there is an inadvertent mistake in the impugned order, inasmuch as the respondent Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (`FSSAI', for short) had committed an illegality by altering the final selection criteria after commencement of the selection process. The final selection is in contravention of Clause C(I) of the advertisement dated March 26, 2019, which states only written examination marks have to be taken into account for final selection, whereas the respondent Authority has made final selection giving equal weightage to both computer-based test (`CBT', for short) and written examination in terms of Notice dated June 14, 2019. The criteria was changed after the commencement of the selection process, which is arbitrary and impermissible in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 51; K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512; Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 154, and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11.

3. That apart, the review is also sought on the ground that by the criteria of 10% weightage given to the contractual employees in the preliminary stage became 10% weightage in the final selection process and in addition 50% weightage is given to a preliminary round, the purpose of which was to screen huge bulk of applicants. This action has caused prejudice to the review petitioner, who is a meritorious candidate but was pushed down the selection list.

W.P.(C) 9753/2021

4. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, grounds stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed before this Honourable Court to:

a) Direct the Respondent Authority to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner to the post of Technical Officer, if the marks obtained by the Petitioner in the "Written Test" alone in her respective schedule caste category and/or in the unreserved category is more than or equal that of any similarly situated candidate who has been given appointment by the Respondent Authority; and/or

b) Issue an appropriate writ quashing/setting aside the provisional merit list, dated 10/12/2020 (the "Impugned Notification") by which list of selected candidates for the post of Technical Officer was released by the Respondent Authority; and/or

c) Direct the Respondent Authority to prepare and issue a fresh merit list for the post of Technical Officer on the basis of the marks obtained in the Written Test alone, in terms of the Advertisement Advt. No: DR-02/2019, dated 26/03/2019; and/or

d) Consequentially, quash/set aside the appointment of all the candidates to the post of Technical Officer who fall outside the fresh merit list as and when prepared by the Respondent Authority; and/or

e) Stay on any future appointment on the post of Technical Officer till the pendency of the present Petition; and/or

f) In light of the various malafides carried out by Respondent Authority, i.e. ill