ANIL KISHORE PANDIT versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1196 · Decided: 02-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1196 : 2024 INSC 188
Anil Kishore Pandit 
v. 
The State of Bihar and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 1566 of 2024)
02 February 2024
[Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to permissibility of an employer to change the 
qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream, during 
the course of the ongoing selection process.
Headnotes
Service law – Appointment to the post – Change in the 
qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream, 
during the course of the ongoing selection process – 
Permissibility:
Held: Employer cannot change the qualifications prescribed in 
the advertisement midstream, during the course of the ongoing 
selection process – Any such action would be arbitrary as it 
would tantamount to denial of an opportunity to those candidates 
who are eligible in terms of the advertisement but would stand 
disqualified on the basis of a change in the eligibility criteria 
after the same is announced by the employer – Having applied 
for appointment in accordance with the terms prescribed in the 
advertisement, a candidate acquires a vested right to be considered 
in accordance with the said advertisement – This consideration 
may not necessarily fructify into an appointment but certainly 
entitles the candidate to be considered for selection in accordance 
with the rules as they existed on the date of the advertisement 
– Any subsequent amendment to the advertisement during the 
course of the selection process unless retrospective, cannot be 
a ground to disqualify a candidate from consideration – Division 
Bench erred in setting aside the order of the Single Judge of the 
High Court and cancelling appellant’s appointment to the post of 
Amin on the ground of his being overage on basis of the change 
in criteria/qualification in the selection process during midstream 
– Impugned judgement quashed and set aside – Earlier order 
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
1197
Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others
passed by respondents appointing the appellant to the post by 
reckoning the age of the candidate in EBC category as 40 years, 
as on 01.01.2011 upheld. [Paras 8, 12, 13]
Case Law Cited
N.T. Devin Katti and Others v. Karnataka Public Service 
Commission and Others, (1990) 3 SCC 157; Mohd. 
Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and Others, 
[2009] 2 SCR 907 : (2009) 4 SCC 555; Zonal Manager, 
Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi and Others v. Aarya 
K. Babu and Another, [2019] 11 SCR 627 : (2019) 8 
SCC 587 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Change the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement 
midstream; Selection process; Appointment; Arbitrariness; Change 
in the eligibility criteria/qualification; Right of candidate.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1566 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patna in LPA No.1892 of 2015
Appearances for Parties
Subhro Sanyal, Sagar Roy, Sandeep Lamba, Amber Shehbaz Ansari, 
Dr. Nilakshi Choudhury, Kaushal Kishore, Mr./Ms. Avni Singh, Sanjay 
Kumar, Ms. Aakanksa Tiwari, Advs. for the Appellant.
Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan, Neeraj Shekhar, 
Kartik Kumar, Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 24th January, 2017, 
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at 
Patna whereunder, an intra-Court Appeal1 filed by the respondent 
1	
LPA No. 1892 of 2015
1198
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
no.8 herein against an order dated 07th March, 2013, passed by 
the learned Single Judge in a writ petition2 filed by the appellant 
herein was allowed and as a result thereof, the order passed by 
the respondent no.1-State Government in compliance of the order 
passed by the learned Single Judge to appoint the appellant, if his 
date of birth was found to be within the permissible range as on 01st 
January, 2011, was set aside. 
3.	
A reference to the brief facts of the case is considered necessary. 
Vide memo dated 13th October, 2011, the District Employment 
Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah published an advertisement 
inviting applications from suitable candidates for appointment to 
the post of Amins on contractual basis. The cut off date of the age 
as per the District level vacancy was fixed as 40 years as on 01st 
January, 2011, for the Economic Backward Class3 catego

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.