Justice Delayed, Rules Replayed: The Case of Recruitment Reform

CASE NAME: SHASHI BHUSHAN VS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS.

CASE NO.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.______ OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7257 of 2023]

DATED: October 04, 2024

QUORUM: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case that revolves around the legal dispute relating to the procedure followed in the recruitment of Junior Engineers in Bihar was initiated on an advertisement published on 8th March 2019 by the Bihar Technical Service Commission (‘BTSC’) inviting applications for 6,379 vacancies. Due to multiple litigations filed in relation to the rules and procedures issued for the recruitment process, the State Government of Bihar resolved to cancel the ongoing recruitment selection. On 19th December 2022, BTSC prepared a Final Select List but kept sealed as the High Court had ordered withholding results. A high-level meeting was held which resolved to cancel the recruitment process and amend the recruitment rules. The Supreme Court ordered maintenance of status quo in the recruitment process.

 

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether the amendment to Rule 9(1)(iii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015, which requires AICTE approval for technical qualifications, is legally valid.
2. Whether a decision to cancel the recruitment process after its full completion is a breach of candidates’ legitimate expectations.
3. To what extent did the enforcement of Rule 9(1)(iii) violate the fundamental rights of the candidates under the Constitution of India by imposing restrictions that were inconsistent with statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
4. Whether the disqualified applicants who joined the selection without first contesting the eligibility criteria should be debarred from contesting the rules of the recruitment process through the doctrine of acquiescence.
5. Whether the State Government had the authority to cancel the entire recruitment process and amendment of its rules itself for reasons arising during the course of the litigation, whether such an action was justified.

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015 (Amended in 2017): Rule 9(1)(iii): This rule specified that applicants for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) must have a Diploma in Civil Engineering from a Technical Educational Council or University approved by the All India Council of Technical Education New Delhi. In addition, a Diploma in Civil Engineering from a non-distance program awarded by a Deemed University established under the UGC Act is permissible if the Deemed University is approved by the University Grants Commission for that Course. 
2. Reservation Rules for Polytechnic Diploma Holders: Rule 4(A) of the amended recruitment rules provided for 40% institutional reservation to the diploma holders of the state-owned Polytechnic Institutes. The High Court held that it is arbitrary and unreasonable. On these grounds, it was ordered that the reservation must be allowed to the diploma holders of any polytechnic institutes recognized by the AICTE.
3. All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act): The AICTE Act regulates and maintains the standards of technical education in India. The Supreme Court has ruled that universities are not entitled to take the approval of AICTE to administer the technical education courses, but they have to follow the norms of AICTE.
4. Doctrine of Acquiescence: This doctrine states that a person, upon being voluntarily involved in a process, would not later be allowed to question the validity of that process. In other words, the unsuccessful candidates, who joined the selection process without first challenging the rules of eligibility, are bound by the doctrine of acquiescence.
5. Constitutional Provisions: The recruitment rule specifically Rule 9(1)(iii) was in violation of the constitutional provision of fundamental rights on equality and non-discrimination in matters relating to public employment.

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT

Learned Senior Counsels for the Appellants, Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Meenakshi Arora urged before this Court that, the Writ Petitioners, having knowingly participated in the selection process under the Advertisement were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence and therefore, could not have challenged the eligibility criteria after the completion of the process.

The counsels for the Appellants also contended that the cancellation of the entire selection process after its completion and preparation of the Final Select List, is unjustified and amounts to a principle which operates as change of rules after declaration of results is impermissible.

It is argued that the Appellants, who emerged successful after the due process of selection which was carried out as per the Advertisement, have a vested right to be appointed and are instead being made to suffer even though there is no fault of their own. They further contended that the order passed by the State Government and upheld by the High Court, amounts to an exercise of arbitrary power because it did not point out the concern/anomaly with Rule 9(1)(iii) which necessitated the cancellation of the entire process.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

Learned Counsel for the Private Respondents i.e, the Writ Petitioners before the High Court also contended that the cancellation of the entire selection process, at such a tardy stage would seriously impact their interests. They argue that as per the stand of the AICTE before the High Court, their applications were eligible and should thus be reconsidered along with the applications of the Appellants.

Learned Senior Counsel for the State, Mr. Patwalia, strongly contends that the State was well within its domain to scrap the selection process considering the numerous legal issues that cropped up concerning the previously applicable Rules. 

It is brought to the notice of this Court that, following its earlier decisions, the Government of Bihar has cancelled the old rules and issued new rules called the Bihar Subordinate Engineering (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) Cadre Rules, 2023. This was announced in Notification No. 1174 on March 7, 2023. The new rules include a provision that allows for a one-time age relaxation. Additionally, the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) has cancelled the recruitment advertisement issued on April 10, 2023, and the Water Resources Department has sent new requests to the BTSC for hiring 2,252 Junior Engineers in that department.

Mr. Patwalia further contends that the completion of the selection process under the Advertisement, resulting in the Select List and in the Final Select List was consistently carried out with the rider that the appointments would be subject to the outcome of the pending litigation. He points out that although the High Court partially cancelled the Select List on April 19, 2022, the Final Select List was neither considered by the High Court nor published, and therefore, the Appellants have no right to be appointed, making any claim to equity untenable.

 

JUDGEMENT

The High Court in an order on 1 December 2022 had restrained the BTSC from declaring results and also to finalize a sealed Final Select List. The decision of the Government to cancel recruitment on 25 January 2023 was produced before the High Court which permitted the Government to go ahead with that decision, thereby vacating all the previous processes of recruitment.

The Supreme Court, while reviewing the case, upheld the decision of the Bihar government to cancel the recruitment process initiated under Advertisement No. 01/2019, given the pendency of legal issues and to call for amendments in the rules. Hence, instructed that the Fresh Select List must be appropriately revised in the following manner: 

1. The Fresh Select List be prepared in view of order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the High Court in CWJC No. 7312/2021. 
2. The Fresh Select List shall also include as far as possible those meritorious candidates who were otherwise eligible but were declared ineligible solely on account of the 2017 amendment to the Rules i.e., on account of their institute not being recognised by the AICTE, and all similarly placed successful candidates.
3. The BTSC is directed to prepare the Revised Select List within 3 months of this Order and the State Government is directed to act upon the Revised Select List submitted by the Commission within a period of 30 days thereafter.

The Court further acknowledged that the Government of Bihar had rescinded the existing rules and issued the new Bihar Subordinate Engineering (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) Cadre Rules, 2023 with provisions for one-time relaxation on account of age. The Court thus passed an order that the status quo regarding the selection process be maintained, that is to say, no results could be declared without further directions from the Court. This was in response to the pending litigations relating to the selection process.

Although the BTSC prepared a Final Select List, it was not released as ordered by the Patna High Court, and the Court noted that changing the rules post-selection process was impermissible and deprived candidates of their rights. The Court recorded that no candidate could raise a right to appointment as the Final Select List was neither referred to nor released by the High Court.

The Court points out the fact that the changes brought to eligibility criteria of recruitment rules went contrary to the judgments and informed the departments that they must not deviate from established legal standards. The court further asked the departments to withdraw their requisitions for appointments and to file fresh requisitions after forming new recruitment rules.

 

ANALYSIS

The Bihar government’s action regarding cancellation of the recruitment process for Junior Engineers was upheld by the Supreme Court because legal disputes were still pending and the rules & regulation required amendment. The court points out that it was not possible to alter eligibility criteria after the process of selection had commenced since it would have involved violations of both candidates’ legitimate expectations and established principles of law. The emphasis on maintaining the status quo and preventing the publication of the Final Select List reflects the Court’s commitment to procedural fairness.

The judgment criticised the amendments made to recruitment rules stating that they were inconsistent with legal precedents, especially in a judgment passed in Bharathidasan University case, which said universities need not seek AICTE approvals for conducting technical courses. The courts, therefore, instructed the departments to cancel the previous requisitions and to consider future proceedings only in the light of new recruitment rules, so that procedures in the future would always be in consonance with judicial precedents and sound governance. This Supreme Court ruling points to the fact that stability in recruitment rules is much needed while, at the same time, making it visible that public appointments have to be done fairly without any mid-process changes that may adversely affect the interest of a candidate. Protecting the integrity of the process as well as the rights of candidates against arbitrary changes in the rules calls for this course of action.

 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision is an attempt to achieve a balance between upholding legal principles and recognising the fact that there are lots of challenges the state faces regarding fair recruitment. Emphasizing that the rules of the selection process are not changed mid-way or after selection upholds the principles of fairness, transparency, and rule of law in public appointments.

This judgment further assures that whenever any rules framed or amendments were done about recruitments, the courts had to ensure such recruitments are made in accordance with the set legal standards and judicial decisions. In this regard, by enforcing the policy of keeping things the same by requiring new requisitions under newly framed rules, the Supreme Court ensured all recruitments from then onward will be fair, just, consistent, and within the confines of the law as well.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY- TEJASRI RAO