Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Rules of the game cannot be altered mid-process - The legal principle that the criteria or rules governing recruitment or selection processes cannot be changed after the process has commenced is well-established by the Supreme Court. This is often summarized as the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-way or after the game has been played ["Ku. Savita Parkhe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["DR.D.HARIHARAN vs THE UNION OF INDIA - Madras"], ["Dachepaili Deekshit Kumar vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Dachepaili Deekshit Kumar vs State of Telangana - Telangana"].
Legal precedents reaffirm the immutability of selection criteria - The Supreme Court in cases like K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) and Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve (2001) explicitly held that altering eligibility conditions after the process begins is impermissible, as it amounts to changing the rules after the game has started ["Ku. Savita Parkhe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["DR.D.HARIHARAN vs THE UNION OF INDIA - Madras"].
Judgments emphasize the importance of fairness and non-arbitrariness - Changing the rules during ongoing recruitment violates principles of fairness, transparency, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and is considered an act of arbitrariness contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution ["Ku. Savita Parkhe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["DR.D.HARIHARAN vs THE UNION OF INDIA - Madras"], ["Dachepaili Deekshit Kumar vs State of Telangana - Telangana"].
Supreme Court’s stance on modifications during recruitment - The Court has consistently held that modifications such as changing evaluation standards or eligibility criteria after the process has started are unlawful unless explicitly permitted by existing rules or advertisements ["Ku. Savita Parkhe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["DR.D.HARIHARAN vs THE UNION OF INDIA - Madras"], ["Dachepaili Deekshit Kumar vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Dachepaili Deekshit Kumar vs State of Telangana - Telangana"].
Exceptions and clarifications - The Court clarified that if no specific rule or advertisement prohibits changes, then certain modifications might not amount to changing the rules of the game. For example, in UKHC judgments, the Court observed that in the absence of explicit rules, such changes do not necessarily violate the principle ["OM PRAKASH GAUR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY CIVIL SECRETARIAT - Uttarakhand"], ["OM PRAKASH GAUR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY CIVIL SECRETARIAT - Uttarakhand"].
Consequences of violating this principle - Any attempt to alter eligibility or evaluation criteria after the recruitment process has commenced can lead to judicial intervention, setting aside the altered rules, and ensuring adherence to the original criteria ["Ku. Savita Parkhe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["DR.D.HARIHARAN vs THE UNION OF INDIA - Madras"], ["Dachepaili Deekshit Kumar vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court firmly establishes that the rules of the game — i.e., the eligibility criteria, evaluation standards, and other conditions governing recruitment — should remain unchanged once the process has begun. Altering these rules mid-process violates principles of fairness, transparency, and legality, and is generally impermissible unless explicitly provided for in the rules or advertisements. This doctrine aims to prevent arbitrariness and protect legitimate expectations of candidates, ensuring a level playing field throughout the recruitment process.
In the realm of service law, a pivotal question often arises: Can the rules of the game be altered during the process? This principle, rooted in Supreme Court jurisprudence, emphasizes the sanctity of recruitment and service rules once a process has commenced. Changing rules midstream—such as introducing new eligibility criteria or amending qualifications—can undermine fairness, natural justice, and candidates' legitimate expectations. The Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld that such alterations are generally impermissible unless explicitly retrospective or non-prejudicial. This blog post delves into key judgments, doctrines, and exceptions, drawing from authoritative sources to provide clarity for candidates, employers, and legal professionals.
This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
The cornerstone of service jurisprudence is that amendments to recruitment or service rules are prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. Once a recruitment process starts, rules in place at commencement govern the entire process to ensure stability and equity. The Supreme Court has stressed that mid-process changes invite strict judicial scrutiny to avoid prejudice.
In a notable ruling, the Court reaffirmed: once the recruitment process has commenced, the rules governing that process cannot be changed midstream. [
#ServiceLaw, #SupremeCourt, #RecruitmentRules
The law on the said issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. ... State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 has clearly held that the criteria for selection or eligibility cannot be altered after the selection process has been completed, as the same would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game has been played, which is impermissible in law. ... The impugned order dated 12/02/2024, being the result of arbitr....
Secondly, the rule relating to altering the rules of the game during the course of the game, was considered in detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.Manjushree Vs. ... Second, legitimate expectation should be founded on a sanction of law and cannot be wishful thinking, desire or hope and they could not have thought that the government will not implement the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Ind....
The case of Respondent No.2 is that the present Writ Petition is misconceived, untenable and not maintainable either in law or on facts, as the issues raised by petitioners stand concluded by the binding judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ... This Court is also fortified in its view by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tej Prakash Pathak, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reite....
The case of Respondent No.2 is that the present Writ Petition is misconceived, untenable and not maintainable either in law or on facts, as the issues raised by petitioners stand concluded by the binding judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ... This Court is also fortified in its view by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tej Prakash Pathak, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reite....
The case of Respondent No.2 is that the present Writ Petition is misconceived, untenable and not maintainable either in law or on facts, as the issues raised by petitioners stand concluded by the binding judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ... This Court is also fortified in its view by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tej Prakash Pathak, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reite....
However, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it did not amount to changing the rules of the game. Para 13 to 16 of the said judgment are reproduced below:- “13. ... In the absence of any rule on this aspect in the first instance, this does not amount to changing the “rules of the game”. ... Therefore, it is not a case of changing the rules of the game. ... As far as the finding of the High Court that ....
not amount to changing the “rules of the game”. ... However, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it did not the rules of the game. ... Reference may be made to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of As far as the finding of the High Court that the rules of the game
However, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it did not amount to changing the rules of the game. Para 13 to 16 of the said judgment are reproduced below:- “13. ... In the absence of any rule on this aspect in the first instance, this does not amount to changing the “rules of the game”. ... Jharkhand Public Service Commission on the ground that rules of game were changed after commencement of selection process, was neg....
Respondents have acted as per the law enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. ... of consideration for the selection, amounts to changing the rule of the game during the process of selection……”. ... Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anupal Singh and others Vs. ... Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is settled law that rules of the game cannot be changed mid-....
Respondents have acted as per the law enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. ... of consideration for the selection, amounts to changing the rule of the game during the process of selection……”. ... Rajasthan High Court. While referring the matter to a larger Bench, in Tej Prakash, the Supreme Court explained the ambit of the expression “changing the rules of the game” as under : “11. ... Hon....
Of course, no exception can be taken to the law laid down by the Supreme Court that rules of the game, i.e., the eligibility and criteria for selection cannot be altered during the process of selections, but, again, nothing like that has been done by the Commission. Furthermore, nothing of the sort has been done by the Commission in the instant case as is reflected from and depicted in the above quoted passage of the judgment.
The case of Rakesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi and Anr: (2010) 3 SCC 104 at paragraphs 14 to 18 and also the case of State of Orrisa v. Mamata Mohanty: (2011) 3 SCC 436 at paragraphs 50 and 51 has been cited to prove this point. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has further submitted that changes by way of corrigendum is permissible, however any change in criteria putting any one in disadvantage is not permissible in law. The rule of the game cannot be changed after the game is under process.
16. Mr R. A. Jan, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that none of the rights of the petitioner has been infringed that would warrant this Court to show interference. He submits that service jurisprudence can be altered provided there is a Rule to the contrary.
In the case on hand, the 'rules of the game' were not altered during the selection process. The prescription of minimum marks in the interview was stipulated in the recruitment Notification. Therefore, the petitioners are in no way prejudiced.
That is the reason why even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has from time to time reiterated the principle that the rule of the game cannot be changed midway through the game. Any recruitment process which is set in motion has to be completed in terms of the requirement laid down in the advertisement and any leeway, if given midway, would amount to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
