SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(UK) 317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Mohan Lal Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 338 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 352 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 361 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 412 of 2022, WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 346 of 2022
Decided on : 27-03-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Mr. Anand Singh Mer, Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocates with Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Narain Dutt, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Mr. Shivanand Bhatt and Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocates

Widening the field of eligibility, in view of an amendment in the Recruitment Rules, does not amount to changing the rules of the game in the midst of the selection process.

Headnote:

Amendment of Recruitment Rules - Eligibility Criteria - Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board - [Amendment of Recruitment Rules] - [Eligibility Criteria] - [No. 338 of 2022, Recruitment Rules, 2020, Amendment Rules, 2021] - The court considered the amendment of the Recruitment Rules by the Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board, which widened the eligibility criteria for a technician cadre position. The court held that the amendment did not change the selection criteria or cause prejudice to the petitioners, as it only widened the field of eligibility. The court cited previous judgments to support its decision, emphasizing that in the case of open selection/direct recruitment, a candidate has no acquired or vested right, and the selection must be made as per the prevailing Service Rules. The court also highlighted that the amendment was made immediately after the original advertisement, and the revised advertisement gave equal opportunity to all eligible candidates. The court further noted that the petitioners' chance of success may have been reduced due to the increase in the number of candidates, but this was not a valid ground to quash the revised advertisement. The judgment established the principle that widening the field of eligibility, in view of an amendment in the Recruitment Rules, does not amount to changing the rules of the game in the midst of the selection process.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners responded to an advertisement for appointment to 306 posts in the Technician cadre in Government Medical Colleges. The Recruitment Rules were amended to replace the requirement of two years' experience with the completion of an internship in the related field. The petitioners challenged the amended advertisement, claiming that it should not affect the ongoing selection process and that their eligibility was based on the original Recruitment Rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the amendment did not change the selection criteria or cause prejudice to the petitioners, as it only widened the field of eligibility. The court emphasized that in the case of open selection/direct recruitment, a candidate has no acquired or vested right, and the selection must be made as per the prevailing Service Rules. The court also noted that the petitioners' chance of success may have been reduced due to the increase in the number of candidates, but this was not a valid ground to quash the revised advertisement.

Issues: The issues involved the eligibility criteria for the technician cadre position, the impact of the amendment of the Recruitment Rules on the ongoing selection process, and the petitioners' claim for weightage for their past experience as contract employees in Government Medical Colleges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that widening the field of eligibility, in view of an amendment in the Recruitment Rules, does not amount to changing the rules of the game in the midst of the selection process. The court emphasized that in the case of open selection/direct recruitment, a candidate has no acquired or vested right, and the selection must be made as per the prevailing Service Rules.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions, holding that there was no scope for interference with the ongoing selection. The petitioners were given liberty to approach the State Government for a representation for grant of weightage/bonus marks for their experience, and the State Government was directed to consider the request and pass appropriate orders within six months.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No.338 of 2022 alone are being considered and discussed.

3. Petitioner responded to an advertisement dated 13.10.2021 issued by Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board (respondent no. 3), whereby applications were invited for appointment to 306 posts in Technician cadre in Government Medical Colleges. The said advertisement was issued in terms of the Recruitment Rules notified on 13.04.2020, in which one of the condition of eligibility was two years experience in the related field, from an Institute recognised by State Government.

4. However, the requirement of having two years experience in the related field from a Government recognised Institute, was done away with by an amendment in the Recruitment Rules made vide notification dated 29.11.2021 and instead, it was provided that one should have completed internship in the related field.

5. Copy of the amended Rules was sent by the Appointing Authority to the Selecting Body vide communication dated 29.12.2021 with a request to issue amended advertisement. The Selecting Body issued amended advertisement on 06.01.2022. Candidates, who could not apply earlier due to the condition of two years experience, also applied pursuant to the amended advertisement issued on 06.01.2022.

6. Petitioners are aggrieved by the amended advertisement dated 06.01.2022, which is referred in the petition as corrigendum. The relief sought in the writ petitions are as follows:-

    “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the record and quashing the Corrigendum dated 06.01.2022 issued by the Selecting Body (Annexure No… to the writ petition, whereby the qualification for the post of Radiographic Technician has been amended based on the Notification dated 29.11.2021, inasmuch as the Notification dated 29.11.2021 was not retrospective in its applicability.

(ii) Issue a wit order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Selecting Body to hold and conclude the selection process for the post of Radiographic Technician on the basis of the qualification prescribed in the Advertisement dated 13th August 2021, which was on the basis of the Service Rules of 2020.

(iii) Issue a wit order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Department to grant appropriate weightage by way of allotting marks for the period the petitioners have worked on contract basis in the Govt. Medical College Srinagar on the post of Radiographic Technician.”

7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that such candidates, who are eligible in terms of the original advertisement/recruitment Rules, alone can be permitted to participate in the selection process and candidates, who are not having two years experience in terms of original Recruitment Rules, notified on 13.04.2020, cannot be considered in the ongoing selection process. It is contended that amendment made after commencement of process cannot affect the ongoing selection as it will amount to changing rules of the game in the midst of recruitment process. It is further contended that amendment Rules notified on 29.01.2021 have not been given retrospective operation, therefore, relaxation in the condition of two years experience, given by the said Rules cannot be made applicable to the selection process which had begun much earlier.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 825 of 2020 (Umesh Chandra Upreti vs. State of Uttarakhand & others). Para 7 of the said judgment, on which reliance has been placed, is extracted below:-

    “7. Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is settled law that rules of the game cannot be changed mid-way and the selection proces

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top