'Rules Of Game Can't Be Changed Midway' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Midway Criteria Change In BPSC Asst. Engineer Recruitment

Reaffirming that the “rules of the game cannot be changed midway”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 6) set aside the Patna High Court's decision which had upheld the State Government's mid-process amendment of recruitment rules, a move that adversely affected candidates who had qualified under the written examination.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi allowed the batch of appeals filed by the candidates, who appeared in the BPSC examination conducted for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers, where the sole criterion for selection was the written examination. However, after the written examination was conducted and the provisional merit list was released, the state government amended the recruitment rules by granting weightage for contractual experience, along with age relaxation, and gave effect to the amendment retrospectively.

Candidates selected under the original criteria challenged the move, but the Patna High Court dismissed the challenge, treating the amendment as a policy decision and holding that no vested right flowed from a provisional merit list, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari observed that introducing a new selection criterion at an advanced stage amounted to changing the rules after candidates had already competed under a different framework.

Relying on landmark precedents such as K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 and the Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others, (2025) 2 SCC 1, the Court reaffirmed that while the State has the power to frame and amend recruitment rules, such changes cannot operate to the detriment of candidate's mid-process.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, directing the Respondent to finalize the recruitment strictly in accordance with the unamended 2019 Rules, based solely on written examination marks.

Headnote

Retrospective Application of Recruitment Rules — Change in the "Rules of the Game" — Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India — The Supreme Court set aside the retrospective application of the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022, which introduced a 25% weightage for contractual work experience after the selection process (written examination and provisional merit list) had already commenced under the 2019 Rules – Supreme Court laid down key legal principles – i. Recruitment Process Sanctity: Eligibility criteria notified at the start of a recruitment process cannot be changed midway unless the extant rules or the advertisement explicitly permit such changes; ii. Vested Rights vs. Selection Criteria: While the State has the power to legislate retrospectively under Article 309, this power cannot be used to arbitrarily disrupt a selection process or alter the "eligibility criteria for being placed in the merit list" once the "game" has already been played; iii. Executive Instructions vs. Statutory Rules: The State cannot rely on executive memos (2018 and 2021) to override statutory recruitment rules that were in force at the time of the advertisement, particularly to the detriment of candidates who had no prior notice of such weightage - Supreme Court directed the State to finalize appointments based on the original merit lists from June/July 2022, strictly following the unamended 2019 Rules, within two months. [Relied on Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others, (2025) 2 SCC 1; K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512; Paras 25-45]

Cause Title: ABHAY KUMAR PATEL & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. (and connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, AOR Mr. Vivek Jain, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Tripathi , AOR Ms. Chhavi Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anshul Narayan, Addl. Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Ms. Shweta Kumari, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Mohd Asim, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jai Krishna Singh, Adv.