Principle Of 'Changing Rules Of Game' Won't Apply When Change Is Regarding Selection Process And Not Basic Qualification : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a candidate who has participated in the selection process adopted under a specific set of rules is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning it thereafter. However, the court has further pointed out a distinction between rules in the context of qualification/eligibility versus rules regarding the change in the selection process.The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh also stated that a change in the selection process will not amount to changing 'rules of the game'. The principle that the 'rules of game cannot be changed after the game has started' will apply only when the basic qualification is sought to be changed after the notification. "The principle governing changing the rules of game would not have any application when the change is with respect to the selection process but not the qualification or eligibility. In other words, after the advertisement is made followed by an application by a candidate with further progress, a rule cannot be brought in, disqualifying him to participate in the selection process. It is only in such cases, the principle aforesaid will have an application or else it will hamper the power of the employer to recruit a person suitable for a job." The appeals in the instant were filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh contending that the candidates who are not part of the list forwarded by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission were also directed by the High Court, in the impugned judgment, to be considered in the vacancies arising pursuant to the selected candidates approved by the appointing authority, not taking up the jobs offered to the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Single Cadre, Group (C). The Single Bench of the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the private Respondents, which was overturned by the Division Bench on the premise that Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "1978 Rules"), if given due interpretation, would facilitate consideration of persons waiting in the queue based upon their performance. Thereafter, a review application was filed by the appellant stating that the relevant rule to be applied is the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group 'C' Posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "2015 Rules"). The said application was dismissed without taking note of the aforesaid contentions. The State through the instant appeal sought to assail both the aforesaid orders in the present proceedings. The case is such that the private respondents and the impleading applicants willingly took part in the selection process and were made to go through the entire recruitment process. However, they did not find a place in the list sent by the Commission to the appointing authority. Though, the entire process was done in tune with the 2015 Rules and in exercise of the power conferred under the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "2014 Act"), the reliance was placed, by the Respondents, on the 1978 Rules which the High Court found favour with. The arguments of the appellants were that "In view of the existence of a specific non-obstante clause, the 2015 Rules, being the later one, and despite being a general law would take precedence over the 1978 Rules, being the special service rules. Since the two sets of rules are completely inconsistent … as such, there is no possibility of any harmonious reading of the two sets of rules." The appellants further argued that "There is no right vested with the private respondents and the impleading applicants to the post, and the waiting-list cannot be seen as a perennial source of recruitment. Having participated in the process of recruitment, they are estopped, having acquiesced themselves." It was also argued by the Appellants that, "It is the sole prerogative of the Appellant and the Commission to prescribe any mode of selection…The impleadment applicants are fence-sitters and as such are even otherwise not entitled to any relief." The Respondents on the other hand argued that, "The 1978 Rules deal with a specified post, and therefore, the 2015 Rules, despite being a subsequent one will have to yield to it, the former being the special law governing the field. Rule 15(4) of the 1978 Rules clearly provides for a waiting list. A general rule will not have precedence over a special one, notwithstanding a non-obstante clause, unless there is a clear inconsistency between the two, in which case the two sets of rules will have to be harmoniously construed." It was also argued that, "The 1978 Rules, governed the field until the 2016 amendment, which only came into force after the interviews in the impugned selection process, and as such, the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has started. Even ...

Principle Of 'Changing Rules Of Game' Won't Apply When Change Is Regarding Selection Process And Not Basic Qualification : Supreme Court

Anurag Tiwary

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anurag Tiwary

Principle Of 'Changing Rules Of Game' Won't Apply When Change Is Regarding Selection Process And Not Basic Qualification : Supreme Court

Anurag Tiwary

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anurag Tiwary

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers