JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

608

Message
show

Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court

This case will determine whether altering the selection criteria after initiation of the selection process is a violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Petitioners Arguments
Applying the additional criterion, that a candidate has to score 75% marks, amounts to changing the criteria after the selection process has started. This amounts to changing the rules of the game and therefore in clear violation of the law laid down by many precedents including C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore and K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh . Changing the rules of recruitment in the middle of the process or after the completion of the process is an aspect of retrospective law-making power. Under Article 309 , such a power exists only with the union or the state and can only concern services and posts connected with the affairs of the Union or state. Laws introduced by High Courts, which are instrumentalities of the state, are not covered under this provision. Laws concerning instrumentalities of the state are governed by subordinate legislations and any change in criteria introduced by them, through a retrospective law, must be specifically authorized by a constitutionally valid statute. Even if retrospective laws were to be introduced, they cannot be in conflict with the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16, which is the case here.
Responders Arguments
Given the present facts, if the holding of K. Manjusree was to be strictly applied, the High court would be bound to recruit the 13 ‘best’ candidates. Therefore, candidates who scored relatively better than their competitors, but overall had low scores may also need to be appointed, thereby reducing the quality of candidates employed by the High Court. There is a clear distinction between ‘setting out an eligibility criteria’ and setting out ‘the procedure for selection’. The law set out in the case of K. Manjusree only concerns the former. The authoritative holding concerning the latter was set out in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha , which held that the government, while making appointments from a number of eligible candidates, could impose a higher cut off than is required for mere eligibility, to ensure high standards of competence. The law laid down in K. Manjusree does not take under consideration the law held in Subhash Chander Marwaha. The absolute prohibition against retrospective laws in India is only with respect to criminal law. Any other legal right or obligation can be created, altered, extinguished retrospectively by sovereign law making bodies such as the High Courts.
Start Date
2013-03-20
End Date
2024-11-07
Card Stage Date
2024-11-07
Review Petition No
C.A. No. 2634/2013
Case Status
Archive
Bench Status
Constituted
Subject Matter
Constitution
Comment
NA
Disposal Time
11 years, 7 months, 19 days

5 Judge Bench

Judgment delivered

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
false

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

Date of institution of case

Judgement pronounced

The Rajasthan High Court issued a notification for recruitment to 13 vacancies for posts of translators under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 . Candidates were required to appear for a written examination (consisting of two papers) followed by a personal interview. After the examination was conducted, the former Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court ordered that only those who had secured a minimum of 75% marks were to be selected to fill up the posts. Such a criterion did not exist when the notification was issued. While this criterion had been stipulated in the past versions of the rules, it was subsequently amended and dropped in 2004. Out of the 21 candidates who appeared, only three candidates had satisfied this new criterion. The petitioners, who were unsuccessful, contested the additional criterion on the grounds that this had amounted to ‘changing the rules of the game after the game is played’. This, they argued, was ‘clearly impermissible’ as per the three-judge bench holding in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh . The High Court rejected the petition. On appeal, a three-judge bench referred the question to a five-judge bench.

Does the mandatory law which prevents the ‘alteration of the rules of game’ pertaining to the ‘eligibility criteria’[as set out in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh ] also apply to rules ‘that alter the procedure for selection’? Does the introduction of rules altering the procedure for selection violate rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? Do High Courts have the power to retrospectively introduce rules concerning employment?

Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002

The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court felt that a more authoritative pronouncement was required on the subject since the decision of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh had not considered a previous precedent in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha . The court also felt that a strict application of the law set out by K. Manjusree could lead to the dilution in the quality of selection and it was therefore, in the larger interest of the public, to revisit the law. Hence, the matter has been referred to a larger five-judge bench.

K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2008) 3 SCC 512]

State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220]

“Rules Of Game Cannot Be Changed After Game Is Over”: Delhi HC Reiterates

“Rules Of Game Cannot Be Changed After Game Is Over”: Delhi HC Reiterates
Source Of Info
Livelaw
Date Of Fr
2017-08-03

Right to Appointment for Public Duty

Right to Appointment for Public Duty
Source Of Info
The Leaflet
Date Of Fr
2021-07-06