Omission of pre-existing suitability benchmarks from recruitment advertisements does not constitute changing the rules of the game.

The appellant, a candidate under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category with locomotor disability, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Information Technology and Computer Science Engineering following two recruitment notices: Advertisement No. 1 (10.09.2021) and Advertisement No. 2 (27.02.2023)

Prior to these advertisements, the University’s Board of Management had approved a "Recruitment Document" on 20.07.2021, which prescribed a minimum suitability threshold of 50% marks for selection

Under Advertisement No. 1, the appellant scored 37.2% and was not recommended, while a candidate scoring 65.4% was appointed

Under Advertisement No. 2, the appellant scored 38 and 37 marks in the respective disciplines; consequently, the Selection Committee found no candidate suitable as none met the 50% threshold

The appellant challenged his non-selection, arguing that the 50% benchmark was introduced after the recruitment process began and was omitted from the advertisements

The court primarily applied the legal principle established in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan (2025), which mandates that the norms, rules, or procedures for recruitment and suitability cannot be altered once the selection process has initiated.

It further considered the statutory requirements of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, regarding the provision of reservations and non-discrimination against PwBD candidates in public employment.

The court found that the 50% suitability benchmark was not a retrospective change but a pre-existing norm approved by the Board of Management on 20.07.2021, nearly two months before Advertisement No. 1 was issued.

Consequently, the principle in Tej Prakash Pathak was not violated because the "rules" existed before the "game" began.

The court reasoned that the absence of the specific 50% threshold in the text of the advertisement does not vitiate the selection process, as advertisements typically provide general eligibility criteria while the Selection Committee follows detailed internal recruitment guidelines.

Regarding the RPwD Act, the court observed that the University had complied by providing the mandatory reservations and allowing PwBD candidates to participate.

The failure of the appellant to meet the pre-defined merit threshold (scoring 37.2%, 38, and 37 marks against a 50% requirement) did not constitute discrimination or a violation of statutory rights.

It held that there was no illegal change to the selection criteria as the 50% threshold was finalized prior to the advertisements.

The court further held that the selection process was transparent and did not infringe upon the RPwD Act, noting that vacancies were being carried forward due to a lack of suitable candidates meeting the merit benchmark.

No order as to costs was made.