En Masse Cancellation of Selection Process for Introducing Undefined Eligibility Criteria Post-Facto is Arbitrary and Legally Unsustainable

The Applicants were candidates for the posts of Scientist ‘C’ and Scientist ‘D’ under Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 dated 20.10.2022

Following a multi-stage selection process—including a screening test, academic evaluation by an Academic Evaluation Committee (AEC), and interviews—a provisional selection list was published on 15.03.2024

However, after the results were declared, the Respondents received complaints regarding eligibility

A third AEC was constituted in October 2024, which introduced new "qualitative requirements" by defining "appropriate level" of experience as specific Pay Levels (Level 7 for Scientist ‘C’ and Level 10 for Scientist ‘D’)

Consequently, the Respondents issued a notice on 25.02.2025 cancelling the recruitment for these two posts citing "administrative reasons," while allowing candidates for higher posts (Scientist ‘E’ and ‘F’) under the same advertisement to join

The Applicants challenged this cancellation as arbitrary and a violation of the "rules of the game"

1. Whether the Respondents were legally justified in cancelling the entire recruitment process for Scientist ‘C’ and ‘D’ post-selection based on criteria not specified in the original advertisement or Recruitment Rules

2. Whether the retrospective application of specific pay-level benchmarks to define "appropriate level" of experience constitutes an impermissible change to the selection criteria mid-process

3. Whether the selective cancellation of recruitment for certain posts while continuing with others under the same advertisement was discriminatory under Article 14

Rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process has commenced, as established by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court

K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., which prohibits the introduction of new selection criteria after the process is complete

The doctrine of severability was applied as per Pawan Kumar Tiwary v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, mandating that authorities must separate "tainted" from "untainted" candidates rather than resorting to en masse cancellation unless systemic fraud is proven

Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of J&K that ambiguities in advertisements must be interpreted in favor of the candidates

The court found that the term "appropriate level" for experience was undefined in the Recruitment Rules and the original advertisement

The Respondents’ attempt to retrospectively define this term using specific Pay Levels (7 and 10) through a third AEC—constituted only after the declaration of the final provisional list—amounted to a post-facto modification of selection parameters

The court noted that there were no allegations of fraud or systemic malpractice; rather, the issue was a lack of clarity in administrative standards

Furthermore, the Respondents' own RTI replies admitted that the selected candidates satisfied the requirements of the original advertisement

By cancelling recruitment for Scientist ‘C’ and ‘D’ while upholding it for Scientist ‘E’ and ‘F’ based on the same set of rules, the Respondents acted in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner

The court concluded that instead of a total scrap, the Respondents should have applied the test of individual scrutiny to segregate eligible candidates

It held that candidates already identified as eligible (marked "green" in the Respondents' own internal records) must be issued appointment letters within 30 days

For the remaining provisionally selected candidates, the court directed the constitution of an Independent Committee, chaired by a retired High Court Judge, to re-assess their eligibility strictly according to the original advertisement norms and Recruitment Rules, without being solely restricted by pay-level parameters

This exercise is to be completed within three months

No order as to costs