Eligibility criteria for govt jobs cannot be changed midway, rules SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday reinforced the principle that eligibility criteria for government jobs cannot be altered midway through the recruitment process. The bench further noted that transparency and non-discrimination are essential elements of public recruitment, reported TOI.

In its ruling, a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra stated that the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the 'select list'—as outlined at the start of the recruitment process—cannot be changed unless the existing rules or the job advertisement expressly allow for such adjustments.

Justice Misra, who authored the judgment, emphasised that any changes to eligibility criteria, even if permissible under the existing rules or advertisement, must comply with the constitutional requirement of non-arbitrariness under Article 14, according to the TOI report.


"Even if such change is permissible under the extant rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness,” Justice Misra said, writing the judgment, noted TOI.

He further stressed that recruitment procedures must remain transparent, non-discriminatory, and designed to select the most qualified candidates for public service.

While the top court acknowledged that open-ended recruitment advertisements might grant some discretion to the recruiting authority, it cautioned that such discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily or in violation of the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution.

The ruling also clarified that even if a candidate is listed in the final selection list, they do not automatically acquire an "indefeasible right to appointment."

However, the Court warned that the state cannot arbitrarily withhold appointments from candidates in the select list unless there are legitimate, bona fide reasons.

In cases where a selected candidate challenges a decision not to appoint them, the burden of proof will lie with the state to justify its decision not to proceed with the appointment, TOI reported. The Court also made it clear that if vacancies exist, candidates within the select list cannot be arbitrarily denied appointment.