Reservation Norms Can't Be Introduced Midway To Scrap Completed Selection Process: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has quashed the cancellation of recruitment process for the post of Rehabilitation Workers under the National Health Mission (NHM), Assam, which was halted after the State Government flagged non-compliance with reservation norms. The recruitment, which had progressed up to the publication of an approved select list, was cancelled on the grounds that reservations had not been provided to candidates belonging to reserved communities.The Court examined whether a recruitment process that had substantially concluded could be annulled on the basis of a subsequent policy directive. Answering the issue in the negative, Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair held that the conditions governing a recruitment process cannot be altered midstream, as this would amount to changing the “rules of the game” after the process has begun. The court said:"On the date when the advertisement dated 30-07-2022 was issued, the recruitment in NHM, Assam were being carried out in a particular manner which had the approval of the competent authority. The recruitment having been carried out and the select list, insofar as, the post of Rehabilitation Workers being published in the website, by complying with the procedure as existing for such recruitment in NHM, Assam, at the relevant point of time, it is to be seen as to whether the subsequent requirement made for conducting recruitments in NHM by providing reservation in posts for reserved community candidates, would have the effect of “Changing the Rules of the Game after the Game have Begun”. It is settled position of law that the Rules of the Game cannot be changed after commencement of the recruitment process...This Court is of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances, involved, the respondent authorities had changed the Rules of the Game, after the same had begun".The court delivered the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by candidates selected for the post pursuant to an NHM advertisement issued on 30 July 2022.The petitioners had applied in response to the advertisement and participated in the selection process, including interviews held in August 2023. A select list prepared by the NHM authorities was approved by the competent authority on 12 March 2024 and published on 13 March 2024. The recruitment was thereafter processed for issuance of posting orders, and a draft engagement order was prepared on 1 July 2024.However, before appointments could be issued, the NHM authorities cancelled the recruitment by a notice dated 13 October 2024. The cancellation followed a communication dated 30 June 2024 issued by the highest executive of the State, directing the cancellation of recruitments where reservation norms had not been adhered to.The High Court noted that the recruitment process had been carried out in accordance with the norms prevailing at the time the advertisement was issued and that there was no allegation of malpractice or irregularity in the preparation of the select list. The Court also noted that the reservation policy sought to be enforced was implemented in the NHM only subsequently and was not applicable when the recruitment process commenced.The Court reiterated the settled position that once a recruitment process has begun, the conditions governing it cannot be altered midway. Applying this principle, the Court held that the subsequent policy directive could not be used to invalidate a selection process that had already progressed to the stage of an approved select list.Finding the cancellation to be selective, the court said that while candidates selected for other posts advertised under the same recruitment exercise had been issued appointment orders, the selection for the post of Rehabilitation Workers alone was cancelled, despite the process having been carried forward up to the preparation of draft engagement orders.While acknowledging that mere inclusion in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, the Court emphasised that cancellation of a selection must nevertheless be supported by "valid and reasonable grounds". In the present case, the Court found that the reason cited for cancellation was untenable and could not justify denying appointment to candidates who had already been selected.Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned notice dated 13 October 2024 insofar as it cancelled recruitment to the post of Rehabilitation Workers, and directed the respondent authorities to issue appointment and posting orders to the selected candidates in accordance with their merit position in the select list dated 13 March 2024, within one month.The court however said that its order shall not be treated as a precedent.Case title: HIMASHMI SAIKIA & Ors. v/s THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORSWP(C)/5619/2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Reservation Norms Can't Be Introduced Midway To Scrap Completed Selection Process: Gauhati High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags