Mid-process alteration of recruitment criteria must apply uniformly to all candidates under a common advertisement.

The petitioners applied for the posts of Assistant Director (Biology) and Assistant Director (Physics) pursuant to a common advertisement dated 15.02.2017 issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC)

The advertisement originally prescribed minimum cut-off marks for selection. The petitioners participated in interviews, but results declared on 08.01.2018 and 12.02.2018 showed they failed to meet the cut-off

Subsequently, on 31.03.2018, the GPSC issued a circular removing the minimum qualifying marks requirement for direct recruitments where interviews or preliminary tests were yet to be conducted

While candidates for Assistant Director (Chemistry) under the same advertisement—whose interviews were held after 31.03.2018—received the benefit of this relaxation, the petitioners were denied the same benefit because their interviews concluded prior to the circular

1. Whether the GPSC’s decision to apply the relaxation of minimum qualifying marks only to pending interviews within the same recruitment process is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

2. Whether the "rules of the game" can be altered mid-process to benefit one segment of a homogeneous class of applicants while excluding another based solely on the date of their interview

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment

Division Bench precedent in Dr. Tejas Mahasukhlal Tank v. Gujarat Public Service Commission (LPA No. 397 of 2022), which established that altering recruitment rules mid-process must be done uniformly

The court upheld the principle that creating an "artificial class out of a homogeneous class" by dividing candidates of the same recruitment process based on interview dates is irrational and unconstitutional

The Court observed that the recruitment was initiated under a common advertisement for various posts across different departments

It noted that the GPSC's "two-pronged approach"—applying the 31.03.2018 circular to those with pending interviews (e.g., Chemistry) while excluding those whose interviews were already concluded (e.g., Physics and Biology)—amounted to an irrational classification

Following the reasoning in Dr. Tejas Mahasukhlal Tank, the Court held that while the policy to remove cut-off marks for future advertisements was valid, its selective application to an ongoing recruitment process was a "change in the rules of the game in the middle"

The Court reasoned that once the requirement of minimum marks was lifted for one category within the same recruitment cycle, it must be lifted for all to maintain uniformity and constitutional validity

The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the 31.03.2018 circular

It directed the GPSC to prepare a fresh merit list for the posts of Assistant Director (Physics) and Assistant Director (Biology) without applying the minimum qualifying marks

If the petitioners are found successful, the GPSC must recommend them for appointment

To protect existing appointees from subsequent advertisements, the Court directed that the petitioners be appointed against vacant posts (direct or promotion) and authorized the State to create supernumerary posts if necessary to accommodate them