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
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:-
(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:-
Anupal Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore
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 tha....
(1) Appointment – Even if relevant rules permit competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of recruitment process, same must be done at any time before relevant stage is reached.(2) Ap....
The court established that amendments to recruitment rules can change the selection process, and the discretion of the recruiting agency in determining the method of selection is upheld unless found ....
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
Point of Law : Court also has a corresponding duty to examine what is the nature of the change sought to be brought and simply, by the jargon "Rules of the game cannot be changed", this Court cannot ....
Recruitment - plea raised by the petitioners is fallacious - As mere acquiring of qualification at a relevant point of time cannot give rise to an expectation, much less, legitimate expectation of ap....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.