CASE NAME: Selection Board & ANR. v/s Sudesh Kumar & ORS.
CASE NUMBER: Civil Appeal No.10932/2025
DATE: 26 NOVEMBER 2025
QUORUM: Hon’ble MR. Justice Manoj Misra and Hon’ble MR. Justice Prasanna B. Varlae.
FACTS
The Supreme Court reviewed and upheld the decision of the division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court on the recruitment procedure for the 38 posts of ‘forester’ in the Jammu Division. The genesis of the issue was an advertisement notification by the department of selection stating the qualifications of the post to be 10+2 or equivalent with a science subject. There are no statutory provisions specifying the qualifications required, and thus, the board came up with its own criteria. It was as follows: The original scheme allocated points as follows: 30 points for 10+2, 10 points for simple graduation, 25 points for a B.Sc. in Forestry, 5 points for post-graduation, and 20 points for the interview.
The selection process had begun, and the candidates underwent the interview process. However, the board changed the allotted points after the commencement of the interview. The board unilaterally allotted 25 points for a person having a 4-year degree, while a 3-year degree holder would be awarded 20 points. This retrospective change in the selection process hampered the selection of a three-year degree holder, and thus, Sudesh Kumar and others approached the High Court. The single-judge bench initially dismissed the plea. However, the divisional bench pointed out the adverse effect on candidates. Thus, the board challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Whether the Board has the authority to alter the selection and evaluation criteria after the selection process?
- Whether the differentiation between a 3-year and a 4-year B.Sc. Forestry degree rational and permissible at the stage it was introduced?
- Whether the alteration of criteria, without prior notice, violated the principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- J&K Forest Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1991
This stated the minimum qualifications required for the forestry position, but did not mention the mode of selection.
- Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution
These articles guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, thereby prohibiting arbitrary action by the state.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANTS:
They pointed out that the changes had been made only in the mode of selection and not with the eligibility criteria. They also stated that the changes brought by the board in the absence of statutory principles were the inherent powers of the board. They backed the changes by laying importance on the curriculum of the 3 and 4-year B.Sc. Forestry degree. They also pointed out the completion of the selection process and highlighted the lack of posts to make any alterations.
RESPONDENTS:
The respondents strongly opposed the decision of the board. They stressed that the basic requirement was just 10+2 in science. So holding any B.Sc. Forestry degree, whether three years or four, was an additional requirement. They claimed the change after the completion of the selection process was discriminatory. The changes seemed to help out certain candidates who had been a part of the selection process. Thus, this lacked transparency and was discriminatory, thereby breaking the basic right as laid out in Article 14.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court sides with the division of the divisional bench. The court acknowledged the power of the board to have the necessary criteria for selection, but stated that the procedure was to be transparent and non-discriminatory.
The court observed the timing of the change. It stated that the differentiation between 3-year and 4-year degrees, if notified before the selection process began, might have been legally sustainable, but the changes made after the commencement of the selection process would make the amendments arbitrary and against the doctrine of the rule of law. The Court applied the ratio of K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512, mentioning the selection criteria as “rules of the game” and cannot be changed mid-way. Furthermore, the Court noted that since the basic requirement was only 10+2, the distinction drawn between the two types of degrees did not have a rational nexus to the objective sought by the board, especially when both degrees were recognized qualifications. The court held that any post facto changes would open doors for manipulation in the public domain.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the J&K Service Selection Board. The Court upheld the judgment of the High Court’s Division Bench. The Bench ordered that the changes made after the selection process were illegal and stated the selection to be based on the original criteria.
CONCLUSION
The judgment highlights the constitutional mandate of non-arbitrary action by the state. The court, by striking down the changes after the post-interview, upheld the legitimate expectations of candidates and ensured the process remains immune to retrospective changes.
“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 falls into the 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: SHARANYA M
