LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 847Decided 7 Nov 2024
Not available
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Chief Justice of India · Justice Hrishikesh Roy · Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Pankaj Mithal · Justice Manoj Misra

Background

In 2009, the Rajasthan High Court invited applications for 13 posts of Translator from Judicial Assistants/Junior Judicial Assistants under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002. After the selection process was already underway, questions arose over whether the recruiting authority could introduce a minimum qualifying/cut-off mark requirement that was not expressly part of the advertised rules, relying on the earlier decision in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) which held that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed after the process starts. A three-Judge Bench doubted the correctness of Manjusree for not considering an earlier ruling, Subash Chander Marwaha (1974), and referred the matter to a larger Constitution Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

Decision Breakdown

The Constitution Bench clarified that Manjusree and Subash Chander Marwaha deal with different questions and are not in conflict: Subash Chander Marwaha concerns a candidate's right to actually be appointed from a select list, while Manjusree concerns a candidate's right to be placed on the select list in the first place, and Manjusree remains good law. The Court held that recruiting bodies may, within the framework of existing rules, devise procedures to conclude a recruitment process, but only if that procedure is transparent, non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary and rationally connected to the object of recruitment. Where statutory rules exist, they bind the recruiting body on both eligibility and procedure; only where rules are silent can administrative instructions fill the gap, but this cannot be done arbitrarily after the process has begun to change the outcome. The Court also reaffirmed that being placed in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, though the State cannot arbitrarily refuse to appoint someone within the zone of consideration if vacancies genuinely exist.

Lesson Learnt

Once a public recruitment process has started, the government or the recruiting body cannot arbitrarily change the "rules of the game" (such as introducing new cut-off criteria) unless the existing rules permit it and the change is transparent and non-arbitrary; and merely making it to a select list does not guarantee a job if the employer has a bona fide reason not to fill the vacancy.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case