Alteration of eligibility criteria after conclusion of selection process is arbitrary and violates Article 14.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the selection criteria or qualifications for a post can be altered after the commencement or conclusion of the selection process.

The court held

The Court held that the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidacy was arbitrary and contrary to the prevailing Recruitment Rules.

It also directed

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the communications dated March 14, 2024, and March 27, 2024, and directed Respondent No. 1 to issue a letter of appointment to the Petitioner for the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer provided he is otherwise fit; Rule made absolute.

01Facts

The Petitioner, currently a Divisional Fire Officer at PMRDA, applied for the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer (Group-B) under a public advertisement dated July 12, 2023, issued by Respondent No. 1 (Corporation).

¶ 3, 6(i)

The recruitment rules and the advertisement recognized a Grade-I qualification or Membership of the Institute of Fire Engineers – United Kingdom (IFE-UK) as an eligibility criterion.

¶ 6(i), 10

After clearing tests, the Petitioner was selected and called for document verification on March 7, 2024.

¶ 6(ii)-(iii)

Following a complaint, Respondent No. 3 (Directorate of Maharashtra Fire Service) issued a clarification on March 14, 2024, stating that IFE-UK certificates could not be accepted after November 3, 2017.

¶ 6(vi)

This was based on the Supreme Court judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro, which restricted distance education for technical degrees.

¶ 6(vi)

Consequently, the Corporation rejected the Petitioner's candidacy on March 27, 2024, as his IFE-UK certificate was dated April 20, 2022.

¶ 6(vii)

02Issues

i.1. Whether the selection criteria or qualifications for a post can be altered after the commencement or conclusion of the selection process.

¶ 18, 19

ii.2. Whether the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. applies to Fire Service qualifications obtained from IFE-UK.

¶ 14, 39, 40

iii.3. Whether the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation to be appointed based on the existing Recruitment Rules.

¶ 42

03Law Applied

Altering selection criteria after the process is concluded is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as established in Sushil Kumar Pandey v. High Court of Jharkhand and K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶ 19, 41, 43

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and the requirement of fairness in administrative actions, citing Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala and Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service.

¶ 19, 42

AICTE Act, 1987, and the definition of "Technical Education" under Section 2(g).

¶ 15, 40

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 Section 2

04Reasoning

The Court found that Respondent No. 3’s "clarification" dated March 14, 2024, was illegal because it contradicted its own previous letter dated July 19, 2023, which recognized IFE-UK qualifications.

¶ 37, 38

The Court reasoned that the Orissa Lift Irrigation judgment specifically concerned "Deemed to be Universities" and "Technical Education" regulated by the AICTE; however, Fire Service is not explicitly defined as "Technical Education" under Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act, nor has the Central Government issued a notification to that effect.

¶ 39, 40, 45

Furthermore, the Recruitment Rules of the Corporation—which still recognize IFE-UK membership—had not been amended.

¶ 36, 44

The Court observed that since the Petitioner met the criteria at the time of recruitment, the Respondents could not retrospectively apply a cut-off date (November 3, 2017) post-selection, as this deprived the Petitioner of his "legitimate expectation" and violated established legal principles against changing "the rules of the game" midway.

¶ 42, 43