Rules Can't Be Changed After Recruitment Process Substantially Concludes: Patna High Court Quashes Cancellation Of Teachers' District Allotment
The Patna High Court has held that statutory amendments cannot be applied retrospectively to alter the substantive conditions of a recruitment process that had already substantially concluded under the unamended rules. The Court held that once local body teachers had qualified the competency test, secured district allotment based on merit and preferences, completed counselling and...
The Patna High Court has held that statutory amendments cannot be applied retrospectively to alter the substantive conditions of a recruitment process that had already substantially concluded under the unamended rules. The Court held that once local body teachers had qualified the competency test, secured district allotment based on merit and preferences, completed counselling and document verification, and received provisional appointment letters, the State could not subsequently deprive them of those allotments by applying amended rules that came into force later.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Sinha was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of provisional appointment letters issued to teachers who had qualified as “Exclusive Teachers” under the Bihar School Exclusive Teachers Rules, 2023. The impugned order directed that they be posted back to the schools where they had originally been serving as local body teachers instead of the districts allotted to them through the competency test process.
The petitioners submitted that they were initially appointed as Local Bodies Teachers under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012. Following the enactment of the Bihar School Exclusive Teachers Rules, 2023, eligible teachers who passed the competency test were required to indicate three preferred districts, with district allotment to be made on the basis of merit. They successfully cleared the competency test, completed counselling and document verification, and were issued provisional appointment letters on 20 November 2024 under the unamended Rules, which specifically recorded that district allotment had been made on the basis of merit and preferences.
The petitioners argued that after the entire selection process had substantially concluded, the State amended the Rules on 19 December 2024 by deleting the provision permitting district preference and providing instead for posting Exclusive Teachers in their pre-existing schools. They contended that the amendment was purely prospective and did not authorise reopening or nullifying actions already completed under the unamended Rules. Nevertheless, by Memo No. 2036 dated 21 December 2024, the State cancelled the earlier provisional appointment letters and compelled them to rejoin their original schools. According to the petitioners, this amounted to changing the rules of the game after completion of the selection process and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Court framed, among others, the issue whether the Amendment Rules of 2024 could be retrospectively applied despite the competency test, district allotment, counselling, document verification and issuance of provisional appointment letters having already been completed under the unamended Rules.
Answering the issue in favour of the petitioners, the Court observed that by the time the amendment came into force, all material stages of the recruitment process had already been completed. It held that the amendment neither expressly nor by necessary implication conferred retrospective operation or authorised reopening actions completed under the earlier statutory framework.
The Court emphasised that the petitioners were no longer mere aspirants, but had acquired a crystallised entitlement under the unamended Rules after successfully completing every substantive stage of the recruitment process. It held that district allotment was not an incidental administrative step but an integral and substantive component of the recruitment mechanism itself, since teachers were required to indicate district preferences while applying and allotments were made strictly on merit.
The Court further held that the doctrine that the “rules of the game” cannot be changed after commencement of the selection process squarely applied. It observed that the State, having conducted the entire recruitment under the unamended Rules and allotted districts accordingly, could not subsequently invoke administrative convenience to deprive candidates of benefits already accrued in their favour. Administrative convenience or policy considerations, the Court held, cannot justify retrospective application of statutory amendments in the absence of express legislative sanction.
Holding that the impugned action violated the petitioners' legitimate expectations and altered the basis of appointment after completion of the recruitment process, the Court quashed Memo No. 2036 dated 21 December 2024 insofar as it applied to the petitioners. It also quashed the subsequent provisional appointment letters issued under the amended Rules.
Case Title: Kumar Gaurav and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (With connected matters)
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6127 of 2025
Appearance: Senior Advocate Mr. Ashish Giri, assisted by Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Mrs. Riya Giri and Mr. Pratik Raj, appeared for the petitioners in the lead matter and several connected cases. The petitioners in the connected matters were also represented by Mr. Manoj Kumar, Mr. R.K. Giri, Mr. Kumar Shivam, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Mr. Anjani Kumar, Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Kumar Sambhav, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Shashwat Sharma, Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. Sushil Kumar. The State was represented by Advocate General Mr. P.K. Shahi, Additional Advocate General-3, Mr. Vikash Kumar (SC-11), Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Mr. Suman Kumar Jha (AC to AAG-3) and Mr. Rewtikant Raman (AC to SC-11). The Bihar School Examination Board was represented by Mr. Vipin Kumar and Mr. Siddhartha Prasad.