The Supreme Court highlights the risks of arbitrariness and favouritism in the selection processes of Solo Interview

Last Updated on March 13, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC

A bench of the Constitution of the Supreme Court said today that the procedure for recruiting a public service cannot change after the start of the selection process, unless the rules for recruitment allow specifically and the change of procedure satisfies the non -arbitrariness test. The Court declared that if the rules allow it or the announcement for recruitment specifies that the recruitment authority can establish reference points for different stages of the process “, then these reference points can be established at any time before that stage is reached so that neither the candidate nor the evaluators or the examiner or interviewer are taken by surprise.”

The Five Judges bench constituted the President of the Supreme Court of India, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Judge Hrishikesh Roy, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Judge Pankaj Mithal and Judge Boj Misra argued: “The eligibility criteria to be placed in the” selected list “notified at the beginning of the recruitment process cannot be changed halfway unless the existing rules permit or the announcement, if it is not contrary to extended rules, permits. If said change is allowed under the exalted rules or advertising Change will have the 14 -year change, which requires article 14. Non -arbitrariness proof.

The court argued that the recruitment of the agencies, subject to the existing rules, can devise the appropriate procedure for recruitment, “provided that the procedure, thus adopted, is transparent, non -discriminatory, non -arbitrary and has a rational link with the object that is sought to achieve.” The court clarified that when the rules are silent or non -existent, “administrative instructions can fill the gaps.” The placement in the SELECT list does not give any right to the appointment, the court clarified, adding that the State or its instruments may choose not to fill the vacancy. However, if there are vacancies, the recruitment authority cannot arbitrarily deny the appointment of a person who is within the area of ​​consideration in the ‘Selection list’, he said.

The problems prior to the bench were whether it established the right law in K. Manjusree V State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), and if the rules of the qua game method and the way in which the selection can be changed or altering after the beginning of the recruitment process. The court observed that the object of any selection process in a public service is to ensure that a more appropriate person for a position is selected and that a degree of discretion is necessary for the employer to devise his method to select the most appropriate candidate for the position, subject to general principles enriched in articles 14 and 16 as well as the rules of government and the reserve. The Court declared that the appointment authority or the recruitment authority, in the absence of rules otherwise, may devise a procedure for selecting a suitable candidate for the position and, in doing so, can also establish reference points for different stages of the recruitment process.

However, if any point of reference is established, the same must be stipulated before the start of the recruitment process, it remained. But if the existing rules or the announcement that invites applications enables the competent authority to establish reference points in different stages of the recruitment process, then such reference points can be established at any time before that stage is reached so that any part is taken. In its 2008 judgment in K. Manjusree, the court observed that it does not proscribe reference points at different stages of the recruitment process, but requires that it should not be established after the stage ends, in other words, after the game has already been played. The court said that this opinion is in line with the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in article 14 and meets the legitimate expectation of the candidates and also the transparency requirement in the recruitment of public services and avoids bad practices. The decision in K. Manjusree, therefore, was considered a good law.

The case originated from a notification issued by the Rajasthan Superior Court inviting requests for the position of 13 translators in September 2009. The rules of the staff of the Superior Court of Rajasthan, 2002, under which the notification was issued, required that the candidates appear for a written exam and a personal interview. After the completion of these two steps, the president of the Superior Court ordered that only those candidates who had obtained 75 percent grades in the written exam would be selected. In view of this decision, only three candidates were found adequate for the appointment, of the 21 who had requested the position. This ex post de facto rule triggered litigation before the Superior Court, with certain applicants who argued that it was equivalent to “changing the rules of the game after the game is played”, as indicated “Any other legal right or obligation could be created, altering and retrospectively extinguished by the sovereign law made by the organs.” Rights, such as articles 14 and 16, etc., change the “rules of the game”, either at a medium age or after the game is played, it is an aspect of retrospective legal power. “The bench observed that the matter requires” an authorized pronouncement of a larger bench in this court, ordered the matter to be placed before the CJI. In June 2023, the case referred to the present Bench of the Constitution.