Changing Rules Midway Vitiates Recruitment, Mere Participation Of Candidates Does Not Create Estoppel & Cure Illegality: J&K&L High Court

These observations came from a Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem, while dismissing two writ petitions and upholding an earlier order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, which had quashed a tainted selection to the post of Knitting Instructor.

Affirming the setting aside of the Selection process Justice Shahzad Azeem authoring the judgment of the bench referenced the recent Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2025) Supreme Court Cases and reproduced,

“… Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;”

Background of the Case:

The controversy traces back to the year 2012, when the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB) issued Advertisement inviting applications for seven posts of Knitting Instructor, Divisional Cadre Jammu. The advertised qualification was 10+2 with Diploma in Knitting from ITI.

Several candidates, including petitioners participated in the selection process. Interviews were conducted in February 2016. However, during the currency of the selection, the Board sought clarification from the Indenting Department regarding candidates possessing Diplomas in Textile, Textile Technology, Handloom Technology and allied trades.

Subsequently, a notification was issued extending consideration to candidates possessing Diploma in Knitting/Textile from recognized institutions, and interviews were conducted afresh. A select list published in March 2017 showed candidates possessing qualifications such as Diploma in Handloom Technology, Textile Technology (Spinning), and Textile Designing as selected or wait-listed.

Aggrieved by her non-selection, Sheetal approached the CAT where the Tribunal partially allowed her plea, quashing the select list and holding that the selection criteria had been impermissibly altered midstream without backing of recruitment rules. This led to the present writ petitions one by the selected/wait-listed candidates and the other by the JKSSB challenging the Tribunal's order.

Appearing for the selected candidates, Senior Advocate Mr. Abhinav Sharma, assisted by Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Advocate, argued that the petitioners were condemned unheard, as they were allegedly not served notice before the Tribunal. It was further contended that the criteria was not changed mid-selection, but only aligned with the draft Recruitment Rules, and that the unsuccessful candidate was herself ineligible and therefore lacked locus to challenge the process.

It was also urged that Sheetal had participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the clarification and could not turn around after failing to make the grade. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the selected candidates had already been appointed and had served for several years.

Court's Observations:

Dealing with the plea of violation of natural justice, the Court held that notices were duly issued through registered post and deemed service was complete. Relying on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Supreme Court precedents, the Bench rejected the argument that the selected candidates were condemned unheard.

The Court observed that once notices are sent to correct addresses through registered post, service must be presumed in law, and a bald plea of non-receipt cannot invalidate judicial proceedings.

Turning to the heart of the controversy, the Court noted that no statutory recruitment rules were in force at the relevant time and only draft Recruitment Rules existed. Even those draft rules prescribed qualification as 10+2 with Diploma in Knitting/Textile from a recognized institution/ITI, it noted.

On examining the record, the Bench found that candidates possessing Diploma in Handloom Technology, Textile Technology (Spinning), and Textile Designing—qualifications neither mentioned in the advertisement nor traceable to the draft rules—were not only considered but selected.

In a crucial finding, the Court held that the Board had deviated both from the advertisement and from its own claimed reliance on draft rules, and had introduced qualifications without notification or transparency.

“The Board did not clarify the recruitment criteria by aligning the same even with the draft Recruitment Rules, but incorporated a qualification which neither finds mention in the advertisement nor in the draft Rules,” the Court observed.

Rejecting the argument of estoppel by participation, the Bench made it clear that where the selection process is marred by glaring illegality and constitutional violations, a candidate cannot be non-suited merely because she participated in the process. It held,

“A candidate by participating accepts the procedure, not the illegality in it. Estoppel has no application where the selection itself is vitiated by arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 16,”.

The Court further observed that since the decisive criteria itself was never notified, an unsuccessful candidate could not have challenged it before declaration of results.

The Division Bench concluded that the illegality was not marginal or curable but went to the root of the process, making the entire selection unsustainable in law.

“Changing the criteria midway or after the selection process amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory action. Such a selection is a nullity in the eyes of law,” the Court categorically ruled.

The Court also emphasized that un-notified draft recruitment rules cannot override advertised eligibility conditions and cannot form the legal basis for recruitment to substantive posts.

Finding no perversity or illegality in the Tribunal's reasoning, the High Court upheld the CAT's order quashing the select list. Both writ petitions were dismissed, and the Court left it open to the competent authority to take remedial steps in accordance with law.

Case Title: Sapna Devi Vs Sheetal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment