The Supreme Court’s bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and MM Sudesh stated that while interpreting the Principle of ‘Rules of Game Cannot be Changed After the Game has Started’ has drawn a distinction between rules governing qualification/eligibility and rules governing changes in the selection process. The bench stated that in the selection process will not amount to changing ‘rules of the game’. The principle will only apply when the basic qualification is sought to be changed after notification.
One the advertisement is made and a candidate applies, the rules cannot be changed so as to disqualify him from the selection process Only in such cases will the aforementioned principle be applied; otherwise, the employer’s ability to hire a suitable candidate will be hampered.”
An appeal was filed by the state of Uttar Pradesh against a judgement of the Allahabad HC, contending that the HC directed candidates who are not part of the list forwarded by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission in the impugned judgment, to be considered in the vacancies arising pursuant to the selected candidates approved by the appointing authority, not taking up the jobs offered to the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Single Cadre, Group (C).
The single bench of the HC dismissed the Writ filed by private respondents which was overturned by the Division Bench.
The bench relied upon the case of Union of India v. N Murugesan and stated that the un- selected candidates wish topress into service a part of the 1978 Rules while accepting the 2015 Rules, and such a selective adoption cannot be permitted under any law.
Supreme Court opined that it is not open to the candidate to contend to the contrary so that he can have the best of both sets of rules. Not only is there a difference in the mode of selection, but also in the constitution of recruiting authority as well. It is pertinent to note, that under the 2015 Rules, there is no such procedure for preparing a waiting-list, as the Respondents seek to contend.
While analysing the position in the 2015 Rules, the court held that an employer shall always have adequate discretion with an element of flexibility in selecting an employee. Interference can only be made when a decision is arbitrary or illegal, which we do not believe is the case in this case. The High Court’s approach is analogous to a blind person looking for a black cat in a dark room when the cat is not present.
The court further ruled that the two sets of rules are inconsistent with one another, and the later rules, though general in nature, will govern the field.
The court in the present case allows the appeal and set aside the impugned judgements dated 09.08.2018 and 30.10.2019, restoring the Single Judge’s order.
