The eligibility criteria for being placed in select list, notified at commencement of recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through recruitment process. Even if such change is permissible under extant rules or advertisement, change would have to meet requirement of Article 14 and satisfy test of non-arbitrariness. K. Manjusree, (2008) 3 SCC 512 lays down good law.

Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 dealt with right to be appointed from select list whereas K. Manjusree dealt with right to be placed in select list. The two cases therefore dealt with altogether different issues.

K. Manjusree does not propound, mere placement in list of selected candidates would confer an indefeasible right on empanelled candidate to be appointed. The law in this regard is already settled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 which has been consistently followed.

In light of Shankarsan Das, a candidate placed in select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available. Similar was Court’s view in Subash Chander Marwaha. But there is a caveat. State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. When a challenge is laid to State’s action in respect of denying appointment to a selected candidate, burden is on State to justify its decision for not making appointment from select list.

– Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra, Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, [Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013].

_____

Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1 explained as follows.

In various judicial pronouncements, law governing recruitment to public services has been colloquially termed as ‘the rules of the game’. Courts have consistently frowned upon tinkering with ‘the rules of the game’ once recruitment process commences. This has crystallised into an oft-quoted legal phrase, “the rules of the game must not be changed midway, or after game has been played”. Broadly speaking these rules fall in two categories, one which prescribes eligibility criteria (i.e. essential qualifications) of candidates seeking employment and one which stipulates method and manner of making selection from amongst eligible candidates.

Cut-off date with reference to which eligibility has to be determined is date appointed by relevant service rules; where no such cut-off date is provided in rules, then it will be date appointed in advertisement inviting applications; and if there is no such date is appointed, then eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to last date appointed by which applications were to be received [See, Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 519].

– Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Soumen Paul v. Shrabani Nayek, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12660 of 2023] decided on 04.04.2025.

_____

Once an eligibility criteria was declared by means of a fresh advertisement, same cannot be changed midway through recruitment process, as same would tantamount to ‘changing the rules of the game, after the game is played’ as held by this Court in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512.

We must also take note, K. Manjusree was doubted by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC 540 and matter was referred to a Constitution Bench. Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1 held, K. Manjusree is good law and it is not at variance with earlier precedents.

– Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Prabhjot Kaur v. State of Punjab, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17747 of 2023] decided on 09.04.2025.

_____

It goes without saying, certain level of discretion must be given to State. But, merely suggesting, a decision to keep an ongoing recruitment process in abeyance and its subsequent cancellation was in larger public interest, is not sufficient. The burden is on State to show how its decision was in furtherance of larger public interest. State has miserably failed in discharging such burden.

In present case, not only benchmarks are being set after the game has been played, rather State has decided a portion of the game itself, the step of interview, should not have been played at all!

– Hon’ble Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Partha Das v. State of Tripura, [Civil Appeal Nos. 4426-4466 of 2023] decided on 28.08.2025.