Gourav Tiwari And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

$~9
* INTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision:09 July, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 7882/2026, CM APPL. 38080/2026, CM APPL. 38081/2026,
CM APPL. 38082/2026, CM APPL. 40484/2026
GOURAV TIWARI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr. Rajeev
Kumar, Mr. Tushar Tokas, Mr.
Vaibhav Tripathi, Ms. Aditi Singh,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Amit Tiwari, CGSC with ⁠Ms.
Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC
with Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr.
Kushagra Mailk and Mr. Ankit
Khatri, Advocates.
Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi, Mr. Arpan Narwa,
Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Advocates for
UOI with Mr Prashant Priya Gatam,
IPS.
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish
Kumar Singh, Mr. Vasu Agarwal,
Advocates for UPSC.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The Petitioners are candidates whose names appear in the UPSC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 1 of 17

Pratibha Setu Civil Services Examination, 2024 disclosure list. They have
approached this Court challenging the Mera Yuva Bharat Recruitment
1 th
Rules, 2026, notified on 06 May, 2026, and the subsequent recruitment
th
notification dated 12 May, 2026, to the extent the said Rules and
notification prescribe Graduation as the minimum educational qualification
for appointment to the post of Assistant Director/District Youth Officer in
MY Bharat. The Petitioners seek, in substance, a declaration that the
st
vacancies identified as on 01 September, 2025 ought to be governed by the
earlier recruitment framework, under which a Post Graduate/Master’s degree
was prescribed as the minimum educational qualification.
2. The challenge proceeds on the premise that the vacancies identified as
st
on 01 September, 2025 formed one continuing vacancy pool; that the
recruitment process in respect of that pool had commenced under the earlier
framework; that some candidates from the UPSC Pratibha Setu CSE-2023
list had already been appointed under the Post Graduate qualification; and
that the remaining vacancies could not thereafter be subjected to a different
eligibility criterion by applying the 2026 Rules. The Petitioners also rely
upon certain communications issued in April 2026 and a CPGRAMS
st
response dated 21 April, 2026 to contend that the recruitment process for
utilising the UPSC Pratibha Setu CSE-2024 list had already commenced
before the 2026 Rules came into force.
Background
3. MY Bharat is an autonomous body under the Department of Youth
Affairs, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. It was set up as an
institutional platform for youth engagement and youth-led development. The

1
“2026 rules”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 2 of 17

post in question is that of Assistant Director/District Youth Officer, placed
in Level-10 of the pay matrix.
4. The UPSC Pratibha Setu portal is a disclosure platform containing
particulars of candidates who appeared in the Civil Services Examination,
qualified up to the interview stage, but were not finally recommended for
appointment through the Civil Services Examination. The disclosure is
voluntary. The portal does not itself conduct recruitment. It only makes
available a pool of candidates to prospective recruiting bodies. This
distinction is central to the present case.
5. In 2025, MY Bharat undertook its first recruitment exercise for the
post of Assistant Director/District Youth Officer from the UPSC Pratibha
Setu CSE-2023 list. Since MY Bharat’s own dedicated Recruitment Rules
had not then been framed, the recruitment was conducted by temporarily
adopting/borrowing the Recruitment Rules of the erstwhile Nehru Yuva
2
Kendra Sangathan. Those Rules prescribed a Post Graduate/Master’s
degree as the minimum qualification and an age range of 21 to 30 years. The
General Instructions issued at that stage recorded that the total number of
st
direct recruitment vacancies as on 01 September, 2025 was 358, and further
stated that unfilled vacancies would be filled from UPSC Pratibha Setu
disclosure lists of subsequent years.
6. In the CSE-2023 recruitment cycle, 340 applications were received.
Offers of appointment were issued to a substantial number of candidates and
appointments were also made. The Respondents’ counter affidavit records
that 220 offers were issued and 179 candidates were finally appointed from
the CSE-2023 recruitment cycle, with 165 having joined and 14 additional
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 3 of 17

appointment letters having been issued. The Respondents describe this as the
first, distinct and completed recruitment cycle through the CSE-2023
Pratibha Setu list.
th
7. On 10 March, 2026, draft revised Recruitment Rules for the post of
Assistant Director/District Youth Officer were placed in the public domain
for stakeholder comments. The proposed Rules contemplated, inter alia , a
change in the minimum educational qualification from Post
Graduate/Master’s degree to Graduation. The Petitioners and some other
candidates submitted representations opposing the application of the revised
st
qualification to vacancies identified as on 01 September, 2025 and seeking
a saving clause.
8. In April 2026, official communications were issued to candidates
identified from the UPSC Pratibha Setu CSE-2024 Disclosure List,
informing them of potential opportunities to serve within the MY Bharat
organization. These initial emails informed candidates that they had been
identified through the UPSC Pratibha Setu CSE-2024 disclosure list for a
potential opportunity within MY Bharat and announced an upcoming
interactive webinar. These communications explicitly stated that the
Department was expected to start the process of recruitment for candidates
from the CSE-2024 list. Subsequently, candidates received invitations and
access links for a webinar where they were briefed on the proposed
recruitment process.
th
9. On 06 May, 2026, the Mera Yuva Bharat Recruitment Rules, 2026
came into force. The Rules prescribe Graduation in any discipline from a
recognised university as the minimum educational qualification and raise the

2
“NYKS”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 4 of 17

upper age limit to 32 years. The Respondents state that this was done to
align the recruitment with the general eligibility framework of the Civil
Services Examination and to widen the candidate pool.
th
10. On 12 May, 2026, the Department of Youth Affairs issued the
impugned notification inviting online applications for appointment to the
post of Assistant Director/District Youth Officer from candidates figuring in
the UPSC Pratibha Setu CSE-2024 disclosure list. The notification
specifically provided that all vacancies for direct recruitment would be filled
as per the extant Recruitment Rules applicable on the last date of submission
of applications.
th
11. The application cycle closed on 19 June, 2026. According to the
Respondents, 787 candidates applied, including the present Petitioners.
Offers of appointment have since been issued to 161 candidates, including
one of the Petitioners. No interim order staying either the 2026 Rules or the
th
notification dated 12 May, 2026 has been passed.
Petitioners’ submissions
12. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondents themselves
st
identified 358 vacancies as on 01 September, 2025 under the earlier
recruitment framework. The General Instructions expressly stated that
unfilled vacancies would be filled from disclosure lists of subsequent years.
According to the Petitioners, this stipulation is not an idle recital. It binds the
Respondents to complete recruitment against the remaining vacancies from
subsequent Pratibha Setu lists, including the CSE-2024 list, under the same
eligibility conditions which governed the original vacancy pool.
13. It is urged that part of the 358-vacancy pool has already been filled by
applying the Post Graduate qualification to candidates from the CSE-2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 5 of 17

list. Applying Graduation as the qualification for the remaining vacancies
would result in two different eligibility regimes operating within the same
vacancy pool. This, according to the Petitioners, is arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
14. The Petitioners place strong reliance on the CPGRAMS response
st
dated 21 April, 2026, where the Respondents stated that the recruitment
process for utilising the UPSC Pratibha Setu CSE-2024 list had already been
initiated and that emails had already been sent to candidates identified from
that list. It is submitted that this response amounts to an official admission
th
that recruitment had commenced before the 2026 Rules were notified on 06
May, 2026.
15. The Petitioners also rely on the doctrine that the “rules of the game”
cannot be changed after commencement of the recruitment process. Reliance
3
is placed on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court , to contend that
the eligibility criteria notified at the commencement of recruitment cannot
be altered midstream.
16. It is further submitted that the Petitioners had a legitimate expectation
that they would be considered against the remaining vacancies under the
earlier framework, particularly because the 2025 instructions expressly
referred to subsequent Pratibha Setu lists. The absence of a saving clause in
the 2026 Rules, according to the Petitioners, is arbitrary and has caused
serious prejudice to candidates who were eligible under the earlier Post
Graduate qualification.
Respondents’ submissions
17. The Respondents contend that the entire case of the Petitioners rests
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 6 of 17

on a misconception. According to them, the recruitment through the CSE-
2023 Pratibha Setu list and the recruitment through the CSE-2024 Pratibha
Setu list are separate and independent recruitment cycles. The 2025 cycle
was conducted under the then applicable borrowed NYKS Rules. That
process was completed. The 2026 cycle commenced only after the 2026
rules came into force.
18. It is argued that the Pratibha Setu portal is merely a facilitative
database. Identification of candidates on that portal does not amount to
recruitment. Nor does availability of a disclosure list confer any right to
appointment or any right to be considered under a particular set of rules.
19. The Respondents submit that the April 2026 emails and webinar
invitations were only advance intimation to ensure that no candidate from
the CSE-2024 list missed the opportunity once recruitment was notified.
They were sent uniformly to candidates without any scrutiny, shortlisting or
assessment of eligibility. The emails did not invite applications, prescribe
conditions, fix vacancies, conduct scrutiny or commence selection.
Therefore, they cannot be treated as commencement of recruitment under
the old NYKS Rules.
th
20. It is further submitted that the 2026 Rules were notified on 06 May,
th
2026 and only thereafter the recruitment notification was issued on 12
May, 2026. Thus, there was no midstream change.
21. The Respondents also urge that the 2026 Rules liberalise and enlarge
eligibility. The minimum educational qualification was changed from Post
Graduate/Master’s degree to Graduation, and the upper age limit was
enhanced from 30 to 32 years. This brings the recruitment closer to the

3
(2025) 2 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 7 of 17

eligibility framework of the UPSC Civil Services Examination, from which
the Pratibha Setu pool itself originates. The amendment, therefore, cannot be
characterised as arbitrary or hostile.
4
22. Reliance is placed on State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar , to contend that
there is no universal rule that vacancies arising before amendment of Rules
must necessarily be filled under the old Rules. The Respondents also rely on
5
State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar , to submit that candidates cannot press
part of the old rules while accepting the new rules by taking part in the
selection; such selective adoption is impermissible as no party can approbate
and reprobate.
Points for determination
23. On the basis of pleadings and record and submissions advanced by
counsel for the parties, following questions arise for determination:
st
(i) Whether the identification of 358 vacancies as on 01 September, 2025
and the stipulation that unfilled vacancies would be filled from subsequent
UPSC Pratibha Setu disclosure lists created one continuing recruitment
process governed by the earlier NYKS Rules.
(ii) Whether the April 2026 communications/webinar invitation and the
st
CPGRAMS response dated 21 April, 2026 amounted to commencement of
recruitment from the CSE-2024 list under the earlier Rules.
(iii) Whether application of the MY Bharat Recruitment Rules, 2026 to the
th
recruitment notification dated 12 May, 2026 amounts to changing the rules
of the game midstream.
th
(iv) Whether the 2026 Rules and the notification dated 12 May, 2026 call

4
(2023) 3 SCC 773
5
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 8 of 17

for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Analysis
24. At the outset, it is noted that the Respondents have issued an offer of
appointment to Petitioner No. 17. In view thereof, Petitioner No. 17 does not
wish to pursue the present proceedings. Accordingly, Petitioner No. 17 is
deleted from the array of parties. An amended memo of parties shall be filed
within one week.
25. The controversy must be examined by keeping distinct three concepts
which the Petitioners have sought to blend together: first, identification of
vacancies; second, availability of a source pool; and third, commencement
of a recruitment process. Identification of vacancies may indicate
administrative need. Availability of a source pool may indicate where
candidates can be found. But recruitment, in law, commences only when the
employer sets the process in motion for appointment by inviting applications
under stated conditions.
26. The UPSC Pratibha Setu portal is not itself a recruitment process. It
neither advertises a post nor applies eligibility conditions nor makes
selection. It only permits recruiting organisations to access details of
candidates who have voluntarily disclosed their marks and particulars. It is a
convenient source of candidates, not a statutory channel which compels
recruitment in a particular manner.
27. In Tej Prakash Pathak , the Supreme Court held that a recruitment
process begins with the issuance of an advertisement and ends with the
filling of notified vacancies. It further held that eligibility criteria notified at
the commencement of recruitment cannot ordinarily be changed midway,
unless permitted by the governing Rules or the advertisement, and subject
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 9 of 17

always to the test of Article 14. The principle is one of fairness: candidates
must know the terms on which they enter the process.
28. The principle in Tej Prakash Pathak has no quarrel with the
proposition that the Rules in force on the date of the recruitment notification
would govern the process. The question, therefore, is whether recruitment
from the CSE-2024 list had already commenced under the old Rules before
th
06 May, 2026. On the record, the answer must be in the negative.
th th
29. The emails dated 16 /17 April, 2026 do not invite applications. They
neither involve any scrutiny or shortlisting of candidates for appointment,
nor prescribe eligibility conditions, indicate the number of vacancies, or set
out any selection criteria. The emails merely inform the recipients that they
had been identified through the UPSC Pratibha Setu portal for a potential
employment opportunity and state that the Department is expected to
commence the recruitment process. The language employed is clearly
anticipatory and indicative of a future exercise, rather than operative of an
ongoing recruitment process.
st
30. The CPGRAMS response dated 21 April, 2026, on which the
Petitioners place considerable reliance, uses the expression that the
recruitment process for utilising the Pratibha Setu CSE-2024 list had already
been initiated. That expression must be read in context. Administrative
replies to grievances are not recruitment notifications. Nor do they
determine the legal commencement of a selection process. At best, the
response shows that preparatory steps were underway and that
communications had been sent to candidates. It cannot override the legal
th
position that applications were first invited by the notification dated 12
May, 2026, after the 2026 Rules had come into force.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 10 of 17

31. Recruitment law cannot be made to turn on loose administrative
phrasing divorced from the surrounding facts. If an email calling candidates
to a webinar, or a grievance reply stating that a process has been “initiated”,
were to be treated as commencement of recruitment, uncertainty would
replace the legal certainty associated with a formal recruitment notification.
Candidates, courts and recruiting authorities would then be compelled to
identify the earliest informal administrative step, file movement, or outreach
communication in order to determine the governing Rules. Such an approach
finds no support in law. The fair, objective and ascertainable point of
commencement remains the issuance of a recruitment notification inviting
applications from eligible candidates.
32. The Petitioners’ next submission is that the 2025 General Instructions
created one continuing recruitment process because they stated that unfilled
vacancies would be filled from subsequent Pratibha Setu lists. The
submission is attractive at first glance, but does not withstand closer
scrutiny.
33. The stipulation that unfilled vacancies would be filled from
subsequent Pratibha Setu lists is, properly understood, a provision
identifying the source from which future vacancies are to be filled. It
indicates that if vacancies remained, the organisation could continue to use
the Pratibha Setu mechanism in subsequent years. It does not imply that the
educational qualification then in force would remain frozen for all future
recruitments. It does not state that subsequent lists would be considered
under the NYKS Rules irrespective of any later Rules framed specifically
for MY Bharat. Nor does it contain any saving clause preserving the earlier
qualification for future recruitment cycles.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 11 of 17

34. A clause permitting recourse to subsequent disclosure lists cannot be
read as a fetter on the rule-making power of the competent authority. The
earlier NYKS Rules were, on the Respondents’ own showing, only
temporarily borrowed because dedicated Rules for MY Bharat had not been
notified. Once dedicated Rules were framed for MY Bharat, future
recruitment had to conform to those Rules unless a saving provision
expressly preserved the earlier regime. No such saving provision exists.
35. The Petitioners’ case substantially rests on the proposition that
st
because the vacancies were identified on 01 September, 2025, they must
continue to be filled under the Rules then in force. That proposition is no
longer available as an absolute rule.
36. In State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar , the Supreme Court considered the
earlier line of authority beginning with Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa
6
Rao , and clarified the law. It held that there is no rule of universal
application that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of the
Rules which existed on the date when they arose. It further held that the
right to be considered arises on the date of consideration and under the Rules
then in force; and that the Government is entitled, for fair and reasonable
reasons, to take a policy decision not to fill earlier vacancies under the
repealed or amended Rules. The Court overruled Rangaiah to the extent it
was understood to mandate, in all cases, that vacancies be filled under the
Rules in force on the date of their occurrence.
37. The principle emerging from Raj Kumar is particularly relevant here.
st
The Petitioners do not have a vested right that vacancies identified on 01
September, 2025 must be filled under the borrowed NYKS Rules. At the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 12 of 17

highest, they have a right to fair consideration in accordance with the Rules
applicable to the recruitment in which they participate. Since the CSE-2024
th
recruitment was notified on 12 May, 2026, after the 2026 Rules had come
into force, the Petitioners’ eligibility and consideration are governed by the
2026 Rules.
38. The Petitioners seek to distinguish their case by saying that the 2025
instructions expressly referred to subsequent Pratibha Setu lists. That
distinction does not assist them. Even if subsequent Pratibha Setu lists could
be used as a source, the Rules governing consideration from those lists
would still be the Rules in force when the recruitment from those lists is
notified. A source of candidates is not the same as a guarantee of unchanged
eligibility.
39 There is also no substance in the plea that two eligibility regimes have
been applied to the “same vacancy pool” in an unconstitutional manner. The
premise assumes what has to be proved: that the 358 vacancies constituted
one continuing recruitment cycle across different CSE years. The record
shows otherwise. The CSE-2023 process was conducted under the then
applicable borrowed Rules and substantially completed. Thereafter, MY
Bharat framed its own dedicated Rules, and a fresh notification was issued
for the CSE-2024 disclosure list. The two exercises used the same source
mechanism, namely Pratibha Setu, but that does not make them one
recruitment process.
40. The change made by the 2026 Rules is also not arbitrary. The
qualification has been liberalised from Post Graduation to Graduation, and
the upper age limit has been enhanced from 30 to 32 years. The Respondents

6
(1983) 3 SCC 284
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 13 of 17

have explained that this aligns the recruitment with the wider eligibility
conditions of the Civil Services Examination, from which the Pratibha Setu
pool is drawn. The effect of the amendment is to enlarge the field of eligible
candidates, not to narrow it. A candidate already possessing a Post Graduate
degree is not rendered ineligible; he or she is only required to compete in a
wider field. This does not amount to legal prejudice.
41. It is settled that prescription of educational qualification for a post is
primarily within the domain of the employer and the rule-making authority.
The Court does not sit in appeal over the wisdom of such prescription unless
it is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, or contrary to a
statutory provision. No such case is made out. Graduation as a minimum
qualification for recruitment from a pool of candidates who have appeared in
the Civil Services Examination cannot be described as irrational.
42. The plea of legitimate expectation also does not carry the matter
further. Tej Prakash Pathak recognises that candidates participating in a
recruitment process have a legitimate expectation that the process will be
fair and non-arbitrary. But legitimate expectation cannot compel the State to
maintain an earlier recruitment rule indefinitely. Nor can it prevent the
competent authority from framing dedicated Rules for a newly constituted
organisation, particularly where the change expands rather than restricts
eligibility.
43. A legitimate expectation must rest on a clear, unambiguous and
consistent representation. The 2025 clause that unfilled vacancies would be
filled from subsequent disclosure lists is not a representation that the
eligibility requirements would remain the same for every future recruitment
cycle. It is a representation only as to the possible source from which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 14 of 17

candidates may be considered. It cannot be stretched to create an
enforceable promise that subsequent recruitment would be insulated from
future Rules.
44. The Petitioners also challenge the absence of a saving clause. But a
saving clause is a matter of legislative or rule-making choice. The Court
cannot require the competent authority to incorporate a saving clause merely
because an alternative transitional arrangement was also available. In
matters of service policy, the relevant enquiry is not whether a different
approach could have been adopted, but whether the approach actually
adopted is arbitrary, irrational, or otherwise contrary to law. The validity of
the 2026 Rules must be tested on that standard. In the present case, the
absence of a saving clause does not, by itself, render the Rules
unconstitutional or invalid.
45. The argument regarding non-consultation or inadequate procedural
compliance in framing the 2026 Rules is also not established. The record
th
shows that draft Rules were placed for stakeholder comments on 10 March,
2026 and the final Rules were notified thereafter. The Petitioners have not
shown any mandatory statutory requirement which, if not complied with,
would invalidate the Rules. In judicial review of recruitment rules, the
burden lies on the challenger to demonstrate a clear legal infirmity. That
burden has not been discharged.
46. The Petitioners’ reliance on representations submitted in March-April
2026 only shows that they requested protection of the earlier framework.
The representations do not create rights. The Respondents were required to
consider the stakeholder comments received on the draft Rules; they were
not bound to accept them. The final Rules having been brought into force on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 15 of 17

th
06 May, 2026, recruitment thereafter had to follow those Rules.
47. The Respondents have placed reliance on Karunesh Kumar to contend
that candidates who participate in a recruitment process cannot ordinarily
turn around and challenge it after finding themselves unsuccessful. The
Court is conscious that some Petitioners had raised objections even before
th
the notification dated 12 May, 2026 and, therefore, this is not a case where
the challenge is founded solely on disappointment after failure. For that
reason, the petition is not being dismissed merely on the principle of
estoppel. However, the fact remains that after the 2026 Rules were notified
th
and the 12 May, 2026 notification was issued, the Petitioners applied under
that very process. The process has substantially progressed; 787 candidates
applied and offers have been issued to 161 candidates. In such a situation,
absent a clear illegality, the Court would be slow to unsettle the process,
particularly where the challenge, if accepted, would adversely affect a larger
class of candidates who became eligible under the liberalised Rules.
Conclusion
48. The real grievance of the Petitioners is against the broadening of the
competition. Candidates possessing Post Graduate degrees may have had a
narrower field of competition under the old framework. The 2026 Rules
enlarge that field by including graduates. But public employment under
Articles 14 and 16 does not guarantee a restricted field of competition unless
the restriction is mandated by law. The State is entitled to dilate eligibility,
provided it does so prospectively, transparently and for reasons which are
not arbitrary or capricious and germane to the recruitment process. That is
precisely what has happened here.
49. The Court therefore holds that the recruitment process from the UPSC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 16 of 17

th
Pratibha Setu CSE-2024 list commenced with the notification dated 12
th
May, 2026, and not with the April 2026 emails or webinar. By 12 May,
2026, the MY Bharat Recruitment Rules, 2026 had already come into force.
There was, therefore, no change in the rules of an ongoing recruitment
process.
50. The clause in the 2025 instructions regarding unfilled vacancies being
filled from subsequent Pratibha Setu lists did not create a vested right in
favour of candidates from later disclosure lists to be considered under the
earlier NYKS Rules. It merely indicated that the Pratibha Setu mechanism
could continue to be used as a source for recruitment. The governing
eligibility would be the eligibility prescribed by the Recruitment Rules
applicable to the recruitment actually notified.
51. The Respondents’ decision to frame dedicated Rules for MY Bharat
and to apply them to a fresh recruitment notification issued thereafter is
neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. The 2026 Rules are prospective. They
do not unsettle appointments already made under the CSE-2023 cycle. They
apply only to the recruitment notified after their commencement.
52. For the reasons aforesaid, the Petitioners have failed to establish that
th
the MY Bharat Recruitment Rules, 2026 or the notification dated 12 May,
2026 suffer from any illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
53. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 9, 2026/ab
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:13.07.2026
18:07:42
W.P.(C) 7882/2026 Page 17 of 17