Rules of the Game in Recruitment: SC in Tej Prakash Pathak

Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Constitution Bench Upholds K. Manjusree in Tej Prakash Pathak

Published: 20 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A five-Judge Constitution Bench held that eligibility criteria for placement in a select list cannot be changed midway through recruitment unless the rules or the advertisement permit it, and even then only non-arbitrarily. It affirmed K. Manjusree as good law, found no conflict with Subash Chander Marwaha, and held that statutory rules bind recruiters, while a place in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment (para 42).

Key holdings

Recruitment begins with the advertisement and ends with filling up the vacancies (para 42).

Eligibility for the select list cannot change midway unless the rules or the advertisement allow it (para 42).

K. Manjusree is good law and does not conflict with Subash Chander Marwaha (para 42).

Benchmarks for a stage of selection must be fixed before that stage is reached (para 30).

There is no indefeasible right to appointment, but appointment cannot be denied arbitrarily (paras 41-42).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

In September 2009 the Rajasthan High Court invited applications from its Judicial Assistants and Junior Judicial Assistants for 13 posts of Translator, to be filled through a translation test (para 2). Twenty-one candidates sat the examination on 19.12.2009, but only three were declared successful on 20.02.2010, because the Chief Justice directed that only those scoring at least 75% be selected, a requirement not in the rules when recruitment began (paras 2-3). The unsuccessful candidates said this changed the rules of the game after it was played; the High Court dismissed their writ petition on 11.03.2011, and in 2013 a three-Judge Bench referred the question to a larger Bench (paras 1-2).

Court's Findings

Recruitment begins with the advertisement and ends with filling the vacancies (para 13). The bar on changing the rules midway rests on Article 14's rule against arbitrariness, of which Article 16 is a species, and on candidates' legitimate expectation of a fair process (paras 14-16). K. Manjusree, where minimum interview marks were imposed after the interviews, does not forbid benchmarks; it requires them to be fixed before the stage is reached (paras 21, 28, 30). Subash Chander Marwaha concerned the right to appointment from a select list, not placement in it, so the two do not conflict (paras 24-26, 42). Absent contrary rules, recruiters may devise transparent, non-arbitrary procedures such as shortlisting, but rules with statutory force bind them, as Sivanandan C.T. and Salam Samarjeet Singh held (paras 31-39). A selected candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment, yet the State cannot deny appointment arbitrarily and must justify not appointing from the list (paras 40-41).

Legal Principle

Once recruitment begins with the advertisement, eligibility criteria for the select list cannot be changed unless the rules or a rule-compliant advertisement allow it, and any change must be non-arbitrary under Article 14; statutory rules bind the recruiter on procedure and eligibility, and benchmarks must be set before the relevant stage (paras 30, 42).

Precedents Relied Upon

K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512
Followed Discussed at ¶ 18, 20-21, 30, 42
The criterion for selection cannot be changed after the selection process; minimum marks, if any, must be fixed before the stage is reached. Held to lay down good law.
State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220
Explained Discussed at ¶ 24, 26, 41-42
Deals with the right to be appointed from the select list, not placement in it; it does not conflict with K. Manjusree.
Tej Prakash Pathak & Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others (2013) 4 SCC 540
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 1, 3
The three-Judge Bench reference order doubting K. Manjusree for not noticing Subash Chander Marwaha.

View all precedents (14)

Sivanandan CT & Ors. v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. 2023 INSC 709
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15-17, 37
Legitimate expectation in recruitment; minimum marks cannot be prescribed contrary to the extant rules and the advertisement.
Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi (2010) 3 SCC 104
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 20
Followed K. Manjusree: where statutory rules prescribe a mode of selection it must be followed, and minimum marks cannot be introduced after the process.
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47
Applied Discussed at ¶ 23, 40-41
Constitution Bench: a candidate in the select list has no indefeasible right to appointment, but the decision not to fill vacancies must be bona fide and respect comparative merit.
K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 395
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27-28
Where the rules give latitude, the competent authority may devise its selection procedure, including cut-off marks for the interview, subject to Article 14.
Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 28
Rejected the plea that K. Manjusree was per incuriam: earlier decisions never considered introducing minimum interview marks after the selection process was complete.
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and others (1981) 4 SCC 159
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 29
Selection to public service must secure the most suitable person; written tests and interviews assess different qualities.
M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994) 6 SCC 293
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 33
Where selection is only by interview, the Commission may adopt any rational procedure to shortlist candidates.
Union of India v. T. Sundararaman (1997) 4 SCC 664
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 34
Shortlisting on a longer experience than the minimum, as the advertisement permitted, was legitimate.
Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B. (2009) 1 SCC 768
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 35
Shortlisting by administrative instructions is permissible if bona fide and reasonable.
Salam Samarjeet Singh v. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr 2024 INSC 647
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 38
Minimum viva-voce marks introduced after the process began and against the statutory rules violate legitimate expectation and Article 14.
E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. (1974) 4 SCC 3
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 14
Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action.

Statutory Provisions