Supreme Court: Rules Can't Change Midway in Recruitment

Introduction

In a landmark decision that underscores the sanctity of fairness in public recruitment processes, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the "rules of the game cannot be changed midway" once a selection process has commenced. On January 6, 2026, a bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Patna High Court's order upholding a mid-process amendment to the recruitment rules for Assistant Engineers in Bihar. The case, Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , arose from the Bihar Public Service Commission's (BPSC) recruitment for Assistant Engineer posts, where candidates who qualified based solely on written examination marks challenged the state's retrospective introduction of weightage for prior contractual experience. This amendment, notified on November 9, 2022, altered the selection criteria after provisional merit lists were published, potentially displacing meritorious candidates in favor of those with government contractual service. The ruling reaffirms constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 16, emphasizing legitimate expectations of participants and barring arbitrary disruptions to ongoing recruitments. For legal professionals, this judgment serves as a critical precedent in service law, limiting the state's power to amend rules under Article 309 retrospectively when it prejudices candidates.

The appeals stemmed from writ petitions dismissed by the Patna High Court in July 2023, which treated the amendment as a valid policy decision without vesting rights in provisional selectees. Represented by senior advocate Vijay Kumar and others, the appellants argued for the preservation of the original 2019 rules. The state, defended by Additional Standing Counsel Anshul Narayan, justified the change as equitable recognition of contractual workers' service. This decision not only resolves the immediate dispute but also guides future administrative actions in competitive examinations across India.

Case Background

The dispute traces back to the Bihar Engineering Services Class-II Recruitment Rules, 2019 (2019 Rules), notified on March 6, 2019, by the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, under Article 309 of the Constitution. These rules governed direct recruitment to Assistant Engineer (Civil, Mechanical, and Electrical) posts in departments like Public Works Department (PWD) and Minor Water Resources. Under the unamended rules, eligibility focused on age, conduct, health, and engineering qualifications from AICTE-approved institutions (Rule 8). The selection procedure, outlined in Rules 9, 12, and 13, was straightforward: the BPSC would invite applications, conduct a written competitive examination (with possible preliminary screening), and prepare a merit list based solely on total marks from the written exam, without weightage for experience or interviews.

In 2019, the BPSC issued four advertisements under these rules: - Advertisement No. 01/2019 (March 8, 2019): 114 Civil AE posts in PWD and Minor Water Resources. - Advertisement No. 02/2019 (March 8, 2019): 33 Electrical AE posts in PWD. - Advertisement No. 03/2019 (September 13, 2019): 18 Civil AE posts in Minor Water Resources. - Advertisement No. 04/2019 (September 13, 2019): 10 Mechanical AE posts in Minor Water Resources.

Candidates applied under these terms, and the written examinations were held on March 12, 2022—delayed likely due to procedural or external factors common in large-scale recruitments. Provisional merit lists were published in June and July 2022, calling qualified candidates, including the appellants, for document verification on dates like June 30 to July 29, 2022. At this stage, the process was at an advanced phase, with selections poised for finalization based on exam performance.

However, on July 7, 2022, even before document verification concluded, a writ petition (CWJC 9797 of 2022) was filed by contractual Assistant Engineers challenging the 2019 Rules for lacking provisions for experience weightage or age relaxation, referencing General Administration Department memos from 2018 and 2021. Though disposed of as infructuous in March 2023, it prompted action. On November 9, 2022, the state issued the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022 (2022 Amendment), inserting Rule 8(5). This new sub-rule shifted selection to a 100-mark framework: 75 marks for written exam (percentage multiplied by 0.75) and up to 25 marks for contractual experience (5 marks per year, prorated for fractions, valid only for Bihar government/non-private entities). It also granted age relaxation equivalent to contractual service duration. Crucially, the amendment was given retrospective effect from March 6, 2019—the 2019 Rules' inception date.

The appellants, featured in the provisional lists under the original criteria, filed CWJC No. 18302 of 2022 in the Patna High Court, seeking to quash the retrospective application and mandamus to proceed under the unamended rules. They argued it violated the recruitment's foundational terms. The High Court dismissed the petition on July 5, 2023, viewing the amendment as a policy aligned with prior memos and holding that provisional lists confer no indefeasible rights, especially since minimum qualifications remained unchanged. This led to the Supreme Court appeals (arising from SLP (C) No. 22323 of 2023) and a connected petition (SLP (C) No. 8231 of 2025) challenging the amendment's formula. The timeline highlights a classic tension between administrative flexibility and candidate fairness in India's vast public employment sector.

Arguments Presented

Appellants' Contentions The appellants, led by Abhay Kumar Patel and others who qualified via the written exam, contended that the recruitment process is governed by rules extant at the advertisement's issuance, creating vested rights upon participation and qualification. Senior advocate Vijay Kumar emphasized that the 2019 Advertisements explicitly mirrored the unamended rules, promising selection "solely on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination" (Rule 12). Introducing Rule 8(5) post-exam and post-merit list publication effectively altered eligibility criteria mid-process, reducing written marks' weight to 75% and favoring contractual candidates—many of whom might have scored lower in the exam but gained up to 25 bonus marks.

They invoked the settled principle from K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh that criteria cannot be changed after commencement, arguing the process began with the 2019 Advertisements. Similarly, the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash v. Rajasthan High Court prohibits midway eligibility shifts unless rules permit, as it breaches legitimate expectations and transparency. The retrospective effect from 2019 was dubbed arbitrary, violating Articles 14 (equality) and 16 (public employment opportunity) by discriminating against non-contractual candidates who prepared under different terms. Factual points included the advanced stage—exams held, lists published, verifications underway—rendering the change a "fag end" interference. They sought declaration that the amendment applies only prospectively, preserving their merit positions.

Respondents' Contentions The State of Bihar, represented by Additional Standing Counsel Anshul Narayan and others, defended the 2022 Amendment as a bona fide policy to reward long-serving contractual employees, aligning with 2018 and 2021 General Administration memos advocating experience weightage for regularization. They argued the provisional merit lists (June-July 2022) were not final, conferring no indefeasible appointment rights per Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India . Under Article 309's proviso, the state holds plenary power to frame/amend service rules retrospectively to rectify anomalies or implement equity, without altering minimum qualifications—thus causing no prejudice or disqualification to appellants.

The respondents highlighted that the amendment enhanced, rather than supplanted, the process: written exams remain central (75% weight), and contractual experience (valid across Bihar entities) promotes public interest by valuing practical service. They dismissed arbitrariness claims, noting the High Court's finding of policy validity and lack of vested rights pre-appointment. On facts, since no letters were issued by November 2022, the process lacked finality, allowing the change without constitutional infraction. They urged upholding the High Court, portraying the challenge as self-serving against equitable reform.

These arguments framed a broader debate: administrative prerogative versus candidate certainty in India's competitive job landscape, where millions vie for government posts.

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court's judgment, authored by Justice J.K. Maheshwari, meticulously dissects the 2019 Rules' scheme to affirm that selection hinged exclusively on written exam totals (Rules 8-13), with no provision for experience weightage. Recruitment commences at advertisement issuance, per Tej Prakash (2025) 2 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench decision clarifying that eligibility criteria, notified initially, cannot shift midway unless extant rules or ads permit—and even then, must pass Article 14's non-arbitrariness test. The Court endorsed K. Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512's core: "The rules of the game... cannot be altered... in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced," applying it to bar post-exam benchmarks that surprise candidates.

Distinguishing related concepts, the bench clarified that while no indefeasible appointment right arises from merit lists ( Shankarsan Dash (1991) 3 SCC 47), placement therein creates legitimate expectations under the original criteria, especially post-verification. The 2022 Amendment's retrospective tagging to 2019 rewrote eligibility (Rule 8 now includes "Basis of Selection" via experience), reducing exam purity to 75% and introducing a 25-mark variable—fundamentally altering the "game" at its conclusion. This ex post facto shift, the Court held, disrupts transparency and invites malpractices, contravening Article 14's equality mandate.

The ruling applies Partha Das v. State of Tripura (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844), where mid-process cancellation post-interviews was invalidated, analogizing that here, exams and lists were "over" before amendment. Article 309 empowers amendments but not to detriment vested interests or equality (Art. 16). The state's reliance on 2018/2021 memos as policy was rejected as afterthoughts; statutory rules trump executive instructions, and ads gave no notice of weightage. No public purpose justifies post-exam changes, as it arbitrarily favors contractual groups over exam merit.

In quashing retrospectivity for 2019 processes, the Court balanced state flexibility with constitutional fairness, ensuring future recruitments (e.g., UPSC, state PSCs) adhere to advertised terms unless prospectively notified.

Key Observations

The judgment extracts pivotal reasoning through direct quotes, emphasizing enduring principles:

1. On the immutable nature of process: "The rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced." (Quoting K. Manjusree , Para 30).

2. Defining recruitment timeline: "Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; Eligibility criteria... notified at the commencement... cannot be changed midway..." (From Tej Prakash , Para 32, adopted in conclusions).

3. Limits on retrospectivity: "The power of retrospective legislation cannot be exercised to take away vested rights or to arbitrarily disrupt a selection process that has already resulted in the identification of successful candidates by publication of a provisional merit list." (Para 36).

4. Provisional lists' significance: "The distinction drawn... regarding the 'provisional' nature of the merit list is untenable. The list was provisional subject to verification of documents, not subject to a fundamental change in the criteria..." (Para 37).

5. Broader constitutional safeguard: "Even assuming that the 2022 Amendment Rules are policy decisions of the State, they cannot be implemented in a manner that violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 and 16..." (Para 41).

These observations, rooted in the judgment, highlight the Court's commitment to non-arbitrariness in public employment.

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Patna High Court's July 5, 2023, order in CWJC No. 18302 of 2022. In explicit terms: "The impugned judgment... is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to finalize the appointments based on the merit lists published in June/July 2022, strictly following the unamended 2019 Rules" (Para 44). The state must complete this within two months from January 6, 2026, drawing final lists solely on written exam marks, without Rule 8(5)'s weightage or age relaxation.

Practically, this restores the appellants' positions, potentially nullifying appointments made under the amendment—though the Court clarified such appointees' services may continue via supernumerary posts or fitment without affecting the original merit, avoiding undue hardship. For the connected SLP (No. 8231/2025), the bench directed the High Court to decide CWJC No. 18429/2025 on merits, keeping challenges to the amendment's vires open, as the instant ruling focused only on 2019 applicability.

Implications are profound: It curtails retrospective tweaks in ongoing recruitments, safeguarding millions in exams like Bihar's BPSC or national counterparts. Future cases may invoke this to strike similar changes, bolstering equality jurisprudence. Administratively, states must notify alterations pre-advertisement, fostering trust. For contractual employees, while regularization policies persist, they cannot override exam integrity mid-stream. This decision, without costs, disposes pending applications, marking a win for procedural justice in India's employment arena.

Impact on Legal Practice Legal practitioners in service and constitutional law will leverage this for writs against arbitrary amendments, emphasizing Tej Prakash 's framework. It may reduce litigation by deterring states from post-facto favors, but invites scrutiny of executive memos versus statutes. For the justice system, it promotes efficiency, as disrupted processes (like Bihar's) waste resources—exams cost crores, verifications strain commissions. Broader societal effects include fairer opportunities for non-insider candidates, aligning with Article 16's ethos amid youth unemployment. Recruitment bodies like BPSC must audit rules pre-process, while lawyers advising governments stress prospective reforms. This ruling endures as a bulwark against caprice, ensuring merit prevails.