Changing selection rules mid-process violates constitutional rights to equality and opportunity; rights already established must be upheld.

ORDER

When the matter is taken up for consideration it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the issued involved in this case is as similar as that of the issue involved in W.P.No.26084/2023 and batch wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petitions by a common order dated 10.07.2024. A copy of the said order is also placed before this Court.

2. This Court having gone through the same, noticed that the petitioners therein who participated in the selection process for being appointed to the post of 'Teachers' have completed the certificate verification also but in the midway the procedure for selection of Teachers was altered by issuing a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.149 School Education (TRB) Department dated 20.07.2018 and considering the same this Court came to a conclusion that changing the process of selection in a midway is impermissible in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and recorded the finding as under:

“ .. 32. The next question would be whether the method of selection now adopted, if applied to the petitioners would amount to changing the rules of the same after the same has commenced. The petitioners herein and other similarly placed persons who have completed certificate verification before 2018, cannot be treated on par with those who have graduated this year or in the recent past. Particularly those who have taken the effort to challenge the validity of the method of selection and waited patiently for 10 years cannot now be denied employment by putting them to disadvantageous position, so as cases to take away their chance of public employment and their fundamental right to equality of opportunity in public employment as envisaged under Article 16 of the Constitution. Viewed from this angle, the petitioners form a separate class who should be given priority in appointment. In other words, GO Ms.No.149 School Education (TRB) Department dated 20.07.2018 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners. Also, the present method totally disregards and ignores all other scores obtained by candidates including TET scores which is not legally sustainable as far as the petitioners are concerned. This is because the NCTE notification dated 11.02.2011 particularly, in para 9 (b) states that weightage is to be given to the TET marks in the selection and appointment of teachers. These guidelines have been specifically adopted by the State Government in GO Ms.No.181 School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011. Having held that the process of selection had commenced in 2017 with the certificate verification, and the State Government had consciously applied the method of selection as envisaged in GO Ms.No.71 dated 30.05.2014 and thereafter abandoned it for no reason justifiable in law, now subjecting the petitioners to a new method would amount to changing the rules of the game midway. As such, any change in the method of selection will definitely amount to change in rules of the game, primarily because, as far as petitioners are concerned, their process of selection, commenced in 2017, but cases remains unconcluded. Therefore, asking the petitioners to now subject themselves to a fresh process of selection with an enlarged group of persons in the zone of consideration would be treating unequals equally which is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution.”

3. The learned Division Bench having arrived at the conclusion as above confined the relief only to the petitioners in the said batch of writ petitions on the ground that the fence-sitters are not entitled for such benefit and also declared that no fresh writ petition should be entertained basing upon the said decision of the learned Division Bench and held as under:

“ 35. Immediately thereafter, when it was imminent that the State Government would make direct recruitment, the writ petitioners approached this Court with the present reliefs. While the petitioners he