Krishna Rai (Dead) Thr. LRs & Ors. vs Banaras Hindu University Thr. Registrar & Ors.
Background
Banaras Hindu University advertised 14 posts of Junior Clerk (Class-III) to be filled by promotion from Class-IV employees, with eligibility rules prescribing only a typing test plus written tests: no interview. The University's Board of Examiners nonetheless introduced an interview component and prepared a merit list combining typing, written test, and interview marks, resulting in the promotion of 14 candidates. The unsuccessful senior Class-IV employees (the appellants) challenged this, arguing the Board of Examiners had no authority to change the prescribed selection procedure.
Decision Breakdown
The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court agreed with the appellants and quashed the selections, holding that "rules of the game" cannot be changed after they have started and that only the University's Executive Council, not the Board of Examiners, could alter the prescribed procedure. The Division Bench reversed this on appeal, holding that since the appellants had participated in the interview without protest, they were estopped from later challenging the process. The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's view: relying on precedent that a Selection Committee has no inherent power to add selection criteria beyond what statutory rules prescribe, and that there can be no estoppel against a violation of law, the Court held the fresh selection process must be redone strictly per the existing rules, with eligible appellants (or their legal heirs, where they had since died) entitled to all consequential promotion benefits.
Lesson Learnt
A selection or examination body cannot unilaterally add new eligibility or evaluation criteria (like an interview) beyond what the governing rules provide, and a candidate's participation in an unlawfully altered process does not "estop" them from later challenging it, because there can be no estoppel against the law.