TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK & ORS. versus RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 07-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 19 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 28 : 2024 INSC 847
Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. 
v. 
Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013)
07 November 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy,  
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and 
Manoj Misra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(a) When the recruitment process commences and comes to an 
end; (b) Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not 
be changed during the course of the game, or after the game is 
played; (c) Whether the decision in K. Manjusree is at variance with 
earlier precedents on the subject; (d) Whether recruiting bodies 
can devise an appropriate procedure for concluding recruiting 
process; (e) Whether the procedure prescribed in the Extant Rule 
can be violated; (f) Whether appointment could be denied even 
after placement in select list.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Recruitment – Commencement and end of the 
recruitment process:
Held: The process of recruitment begins with the issuance of 
advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies – 
It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of 
applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of 
ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview 
or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for 
appointment. [Para 13]
Service Law – Recruitment – Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules 
of the game’ must not be changed during the course of the 
game, or after the game is played:
Held: The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through 
the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule 
against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution –  
Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of 
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
29
Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
equality enshrined in Article 14 – In other words, Article 14 is the 
genus while Article 16 is a species – Article 16 gives effect to the 
concept of equality in all matters relating to public employment – 
These two articles strike at arbitrariness in State action and 
ensure fairness and equality of treatment – Eligibility criteria for 
being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement 
of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through 
the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or 
the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so 
permit – 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. [Paras 14, 42(2)]
Service Law – Recruitment – Whether the decision in  
K. Manjusree is at variance with earlier precedents on the 
subject:
Held: K. Manjusree case is not at variance with earlier precedents – 
The decision in K. Manjusree does not proscribe setting of 
benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process but 
mandates that it should not be set after the stage is over, in 
other words after the game has already been played – This view 
is in consonance with the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in 
Article 14 of the Constitution and meets the legitimate expectation 
of the candidates as also the requirement of transparency in 
recruitment to public services and thereby obviates malpractices in 
preparation of select list – The decision in K. Manjusree case lays 
down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash 
Chander Marwaha case – Subash Chander Marwaha deals with 
the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree 
deals with the right to be placed in the Select List – The two cases 
therefore deal with altogether different issues. [Paras 18, 30, 42(3)]
Service Law – Recruitment – Whether recruiting bodies can 
devise an appropriate procedure for concluding recruiting 
process:
Held: Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise 
appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its 
logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, 
non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the 
object sought to be achieved. [Para 42(4)]
30
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Service Law – Recruitment – Whether the procedure prescribed 
in the Extant Rule can be violated:
Held: Procedure prescribed in the Extant Rule cannot be violated – 
Extant Rules having statutory force are

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