The Supreme Court of India, through a five-judge Constitution Bench, held on 4 November 2024 that government recruitment criteria cannot be altered mid-process unless existing rules expressly permit such modification. The Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra ruled that changing eligibility conditions after applications have been submitted violates the principles of equality under Article 14 and the right to equal opportunity in public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution.
Background
The case arose from a recruitment process conducted by the Rajasthan High Court in which eligibility conditions were modified after candidates had already submitted their applications. Candidates who met the original criteria found themselves disqualified under the revised requirements, prompting a constitutional challenge.
The issue had generated conflicting precedents across High Courts and Supreme Court benches. Some earlier decisions had upheld the employer's prerogative to modify selection criteria at any stage of the recruitment process, while others had emphasised the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the prohibition against arbitrary State action. The reference to a five-judge Constitution Bench was necessitated by these divergent positions, requiring an authoritative resolution of the legal principles governing mid-process modifications to recruitment standards.
Key Holdings
The Constitution Bench established the following principles:
No mid-process changes without express authority: The recruiting body cannot alter eligibility criteria after the process has commenced — specifically after the last date for submission of applications — unless the existing recruitment rules or governing regulations expressly authorise such modification at that stage. An inherent or implied power to modify criteria cannot be assumed.
Legitimate expectation is constitutionally protected: Candidates who apply for a position under a particular set of eligibility conditions acquire a legitimate expectation that they will be assessed against those stated criteria. Retrospective modification that disqualifies such candidates is arbitrary and violates Article 14.
Distinction between eligibility and selection methodology: The Bench distinguished between eligibility criteria (which cannot be altered) and the methodology of selection (such as the weightage given to different components), where the recruiting authority retains greater discretion, provided it acts reasonably and transparently.
Prospective applicability: The ruling applies to all pending and future recruitments. Where modifications to eligibility criteria are deemed necessary, they must be implemented for the next recruitment cycle rather than applied retrospectively to a process already underway.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment will have far-reaching consequences in service law litigation, which constitutes a substantial proportion of High Court writ dockets. Practitioners representing candidates in ongoing recruitment challenges now have a definitive Constitution Bench authority to invoke against any mid-process change that alters the eligibility parameters.
For government bodies and recruiting authorities, the judgment mandates rigorous upfront planning of recruitment criteria. Any anticipated need for flexibility must be expressly provided for in the governing rules or the recruitment advertisement itself. Authorities should conduct thorough reviews of eligibility conditions before publishing advertisements, as post-publication modifications will face presumptive invalidity.
Practitioners should also note the distinction drawn between eligibility criteria and selection methodology — this nuance will be critical in cases where the challenge concerns not the eligibility threshold but the marking scheme or interview weightage, where authorities may still have defensible discretion.