Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(UT) 2736
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Mohan Lal Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others – 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, Mr. Bhagwat Mehra
For the Respondents: Mr. Narain Dutt, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Mr. Sandeep Tiwari
Amendments to recruitment rules do not violate ongoing selection processes if they widen eligibility criteria without altering selection basics.
Headnote:(A) Recruitment - Eligibility Criteria - The Recruitment Rules governing the appointment of Radiographic Technicians were amended, removing the requirement of two years of experience in favor of completing an internship. The petitioners challenged the revised advertisement as retroactive and unfair.
(B) Judicial Precedent - Reliance was placed on previous judgments indicating that selection procedures cannot change mid-process. The court ruled that the amended eligibility criteria did not create prejudice against the petitioners, as the revised criteria widened the eligibility pool.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested the eligible criteria changes after applying for posts advertised prior to the amendment. They claimed that the amendment should not apply as it was made during the ongoing selection process.
Findings of Court:
The amendments did not affect the selection process adversely for petitioners; eligibility widened without altering selection criteria.
Issues: The primary issue concerned whether the amended rules could be applied retrospectively in ongoing selections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that no vested rights were created for candidates who participated in the application process; changes were valid and did not constitute altering rules mid-stream.
Result: Petitioners' claims dismissed as no prejudice was caused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. amendments to recruitment rules did not cause prejudice. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. eligibility criteria changes were lawful and appropriately communicated. (Para 7 , 8 , 24) |
| 3. court confirmed that amendments did not constitute changes mid-selection. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. no vested rights were established for candidates under amended rules. (Para 16 , 19) |
| 5. state government has discretion to consider experience for future selections. (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 w
