Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4655

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B. Anand, Administrative Member, Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
Rohit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
Transferred Application No. 61/7426/2020|Service Writ Petition No. 314 of 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Navyug Sethi
For the Respondents: Mr. Diwakar Sharma, D.A.G., Mr. Hunar Gupta, D.A.G., Mr. Rajesh Thapa, A.A.G.

Selection criteria cannot be changed mid-recruitment process after exams and interviews; mandatory advertisement preference for postgraduates upheld, quashing revision that disadvantaged qualified candidate.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment Process - Selection criteria cannot be changed midstream after written test and interview are completed - Advertisement notice mandating preference ('shall be given') to postgraduates in specified disciplines creates binding obligation - Initial criteria allotting 5% marks for preferential postgraduate qualification, consistent with advertisement, cannot be revised by merging marks into written exam (75% to 80%) and retaining 20% viva voce - Such change violates settled principle that 'rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over or even in the midst of the game' - Revision based on representations impermissible; new criteria applicable only to future recruitments (Paras 22-30)

(B) Estoppel - Participation in selection process does not bar challenge where criteria altered post-interview without candidate's knowledge - Distinguished from cases of conscious participation under known rules (Para 21)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, a postgraduate in Economics under reserved category, qualified written exam and interview for post advertised in 2013 with preference for postgraduates. Post-interview, criteria notified on 08.11.2017 (75% written + 5% postgraduate + 20% viva) revised on 23.11.2017 to 80% written + 20% viva, leading to selection of less qualified candidates and exclusion of applicant despite merit.

Findings of Court:
Impugned revision notice quashed qua selected private respondents; respondents directed to select and appoint applicant per original advertisement and 08.11.2017 criteria based on merit.

Issues: Legality of revising selection criteria after interviews; effect of 'preference shall be given' clause; applicability of estoppel to participating candidate.

Ratio Decidendi: Selection criteria fixed by advertisement cannot be altered mid-process; mandatory preference for higher qualification must be honoured; post-process changes vitiate selections, relying on Supreme Court precedents prohibiting mid-game rule changes.

Result: Transferred Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. advertisement and initial selection criteria with postgraduate preference (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 20)
2. prior litigation and case transfer to tribunal (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. respondents' defense on representations and participation estoppel (Para 8 , 17)
4. applicant's challenge to post-interview criteria change (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. rules of game cannot change mid-selection process (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. revised criteria should apply prospectively only (Para 29 , 30)
7. quash revised criteria and direct applicant selection (Para 32 , 33 , 34)

ORDER

Per:- Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

The brief facts of the case, as stated in the Transferred Application (in short T.A.), are that Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection (in short J&K SSB) had issued an advertisement notice No. 06 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure ‘C’) calling applications from eligible candidates for participating in the selection process for various posts including 15 posts of Industrial Promotion Officer at item No. 353 of the aforesaid advertisement. Out of 15 posts of Industrial Promotion Officer, 03 posts were reserved for RBA category. The qualification prescribed for the post of Industrial Promotion Officer in Annexure ‘A’ to the aforesaid advertisement notice is as under:-

“Graduate with Economics/Statistics/Business Administration/Chemistry/BioTechnology/Microbiology/Pharma/Electronics/Computer Science as one of the subject (preference shall be given to post graduate in these discipline or Engineering Graduate in Mechanical/Electrical/Chemical/Metallurgy/Textile/Elect ronics/Agriculture/Food/Environment/Industrial or Degree/Post Graduate Diploma in Wood/Leather/Food/Polymer Technology from the recognized University/Institute/M. Tech in Information Technology.”

2. The applicant herein having the qualification of M.A. Economics and being a resident of backward area applied under the RBA category for the post of Industrial Promotion Officer. Thereafter, a written examination was conducted and the applicant qualified the same. Thereafter, vide interview notice dated 26.07.2017, the applicant was called for interview on 18.8.2017. The applicant went for interview and did fairly well. The documents of the applicant were also duly verified and were found in order. After the interviews, the Respondent No. 3 issued criteria approved for various posts on 08.11.2017, which was strictly as per the terms and conditions of advertisement notice and this criteria was also earlier followed for various posts including the post of Industrial Promotion Officer. The following criteria was fixed and approved for the post of Industrial Promotion Officer in the board meeting held on 08.11.2017 prescribed by the respondents:-

“Max. Marks for written examination = 75% &

Max. Marks allotted to preferential Post Graduate qualification or having prescribed Technical qualification = 05%

Marks in viva voce = 20% (**75 + 5 +20)”

3. As per the selection criteria dated 08.11.2017, the applicant being a post graduate was entitled to five marks. However, the selection criteria notified on 08.11.2017 was unilaterally changed/revised by providing the following criteria vide impugned notification No. 665-SSB of 2017 dated 23.11.2017:-

“80% for written

20% for viva voce”

4. Subsequent to issuance of impugned notification 665-SSB of 2017 dated 23.11.2017, the respondent No. 3 by applying the impugned revised criteria notified vice notification 665-SSB of 2017 dated 23.11.2017 issued a select list of candidates by virtue of which, amongst others, the respondents No. 4 to 6 have been selected to the posts of Industrial Promotion Officer under RBA category. However, to the utter dismay of the applicant, his name did not figure in the impugned select list under RBA category despite being highly meritorious having the post graduate qualification at his credit and the basis of recommendations made by Respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 2 issued appointm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4655

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALB. Anand, Administrative Member, Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial MemberRohit Singh – AppellantVersusState of Jammu & Kashmir – RespondentTransferred Application No. 61/7426/2020|Service Writ Petition No. 314 of 2018

Selection criteria cannot be changed mid-recruitment process after exams and interviews; mandatory advertisement preference for postgraduates upheld, quashing revision that disadvantaged qualified candidate.

Cases Referred (4)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B. Anand, Administrative Member, Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
Rohit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
Transferred Application No. 61/7426/2020|Service Writ Petition No. 314 of 2018