Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(UT) 2740
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Mohan Lal Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 346 of 2022 | 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
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Mr. Anand Singh Mer, Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Bhagwat Mehra
For the Respondents: Mr. Narain Dutt, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Mr. Sandeep Tiwari
Amendments in recruitment rules widening eligibility do not retroactively prejudice candidates if selection criteria remains unaffected.
Headnote:(A) Recruitment Rules - Amendment to eligibility criteria - Writ petitions challenging amended rules post-advertisement - Petitioners sought to exclude candidates without two years experience - Court observed that amendment did not change selection criteria significantly and did not disadvantage petitioners. (Paras 9, 10, 17, 23).
(B) Legal principles on candidate rights - Candidates have no absolute right arising from application unless rules demand eligibility - Changes in criteria widening eligibility permissible if they do not violate existing rights. (Paras 12, 14, 19, 28).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the selection criteria for Technician posts after advertisement, alleging that amendments were non-retrospective and prejudiced their rights.
Findings of Court:
Court determined that amendments were appropriate, widening eligibility without detriment and issuing revised advertisement aligned with new criteria.
Issues: Core issue related to whether amendments in recruitment rules affected ongoing selection process unlawfully.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that the amendment was not retrospective and did not alter the core eligibility, thus no prejudice against existing candidates.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. amendment in rules affecting eligibility. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. candidates' claims to selection process rights. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's reasoning on selection criteria changes. (Para 9 , 10 , 19) |
| 4. subjective interpretation of recruitment rules. (Para 14 , 17 , 23) |
| 5. final ruling allowing government discretion. (Para 28) |
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
(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 t
