Eligibility criteria amended before the application deadline do not constitute an impermissible change in recruitment rules.

The Haryana Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No. 16/2024 dated 21 June 2024 for recruitment to the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Group B), prescribing registration with the Board of Ayurvedic/Unani System of Medicine, Haryana as an essential qualification.

By corrigendum dated 5 July 2024, issued pursuant to a Government letter dated 4 July 2024, the eligibility condition was enlarged to include candidates registered with any Board of Ayurvedic System of Medicine/Indian Medical Council.

The application deadline was subsequently extended until 20 August 2024.

The Screening Test was held on 23 September 2024, and its result was declared on 9 October 2024. Most petitioners were unsuccessful; seven petitioners in CWP-23791-2024 were ultimately selected.

The selection process was completed and appointments were made, but the selected candidates were not impleaded.

The Court considered the principle that recruitment qualifications and eligibility conditions should ordinarily conform to the rules prevailing when the vacancies arose, as stated in P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala.

It applied the Supreme Court’s formulation in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706, that the “changing the rules of the game” doctrine applies where a subsequent change disqualifies or non-suits a candidate, but not where the alteration does not prevent participation in the selection process.

The Court further relied on Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh for the rule that an unsuccessful candidate who participates in a selection process without timely objection ordinarily cannot later challenge the advertisement or an allegedly ambiguous condition.

It also applied the principles of waiver, acquiescence, estoppel, and approbation and reprobation, as reaffirmed in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J&K, (2023) 17 SCC 147, under which candidates who participate with knowledge of the amended criteria cannot challenge the process after an adverse result, absent mala fides or arbitrariness.

The Court held that the corrigendum was issued on 5 July 2024, seven days before the original closing date of 12 July 2024, and pursuant to a Government letter dated 4 July 2024. Accordingly, the eligibility condition was altered before the application process closed and not after the selection process had substantially progressed.

The amendment did not exclude the petitioners, who remained eligible to participate; rather, it enlarged the pool of eligible candidates. Since no petitioner was disqualified or non-suited, the rule against changing the rules of the game, as explained in Karunesh Kumar, was held inapplicable.

The petitioners also failed to establish any material prejudice caused by the inclusion of candidates registered with other recognised Boards or Councils.

Further, except to the limited extent that some petitioners in CWP-23791-2024 had approached the Court before the Screening Test, the petitioners participated in the recruitment process and challenged the condition after remaining unsuccessful.

The Court held that such conduct attracted waiver and acquiescence, and that the petitioners could not approbate and reprobate by accepting the process when participating but questioning it after an unfavourable result.

The completion of the selection process and non-impleadment of selected candidates also weighed against granting relief.

The petitioners who participated in the selection and remained unsuccessful were additionally barred by waiver, acquiescence, and the principle against approbation and reprobation from challenging the recruitment process.

All four writ petitions were accordingly dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.