Ongoing selections must be concluded under the rules prevailing when the process commenced.

The petitioner, a Subject Teacher of Mathematics, applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.06.2016 for appointment as regular Principal of National Higher Secondary School, Lumding. He participated in the interview held on 14.12.2016 and was placed first in the panel with 11 out of 15 marks. The School Selection Committee recommended his name.

An unsuccessful candidate, Ratna Dutta, challenged the selection in WP(C) No. 1296/2017, alleging that the School Selection Committee was improperly constituted. The writ petition was dismissed on 14.03.2018, with directions to the State authorities to comply with the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003, the relevant Office Memorandum, and the Director’s order before finalising the selection.

The State Selection Board thereafter passed a speaking order dated 18.12.2018 recommending the petitioner. However, by letter dated 08.05.2019, the Joint Secretary directed constitution of a fresh School Selection Committee and a fresh interview, on the ground that the earlier Committee had not been constituted in conformity with the 2003 Rules. The newly constituted Committee held an interview on 23.06.2019. The petitioner participated and was placed third with 7 marks, while Sudip Dutta and Ratna Dutta stood first and second with 12 and 9 marks, respectively.

The result was kept in a sealed cover pursuant to an interim order of the Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the first- and second-ranked candidates retired from service. The petitioner contended that he thereby stood upgraded to the first position and sought completion of the 2019 selection process under the 2003 Rules. The State opposed the prayer, relying on the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018, as amended in 2021, and sought permission to initiate a fresh selection under the prevailing Rules.

1. Whether the selection process initiated under the 2003 Rules could be completed under those Rules, notwithstanding the subsequent enactment of the 2018 Rules and their 2021 amendment?

2. Whether the respondents could abandon the 2019 interview process and initiate a fresh selection under the subsequent Rules?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the authorities to process the 23.06.2019 interview statement and consider him for appointment as Principal?

The Court applied Rule 13(3) and Rule 13(4) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003, under which the School Selection Committee must forward the interview statement to the State Selection Board, which must process and forward the approved proposal to the Government.

The Court held that a selection process is ordinarily governed by the rules in force when it was initiated, and that subsequent rules do not apply retrospectively absent a contrary legislative intention.

It relied on State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav, (1994) 6 SCC 151, concerning the absence of a vested right to appointment under an earlier recruitment process; Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, holding that inclusion in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, although the State cannot act arbitrarily; K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512, on the impermissibility of changing the rules of the game midway; and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 INSC 847, affirming that a select-list placement does not guarantee appointment but that the State must act fairly and non-arbitrarily.

The Court also considered Partha Das v. State of Tripura, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844, and State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla, (1994) 1 SCC 175, but found them inapplicable to the petitioner’s case.

The Court treated the selection process as having commenced under the 2003 Rules and the applicable 2016 instructions. It held that the later 2018 Rules could not retrospectively govern or displace a process that had already advanced through constitution of the Committee, interviews, preparation of the panel, and preservation of the result in a sealed cover.

Although the petitioner had no absolute or indefeasible right to appointment merely by being placed in a panel, the State was required to complete the pending process in a lawful, fair, and non-arbitrary manner.

The Court further noted that the candidates placed first and second in the 2019 interview had retired, resulting, in its view, in the petitioner’s position being upgraded to first. It therefore rejected the State’s request for a fresh selection under the later Rules and directed implementation of the existing 2019 selection process under Rule 13 of the 2003 Rules.

The Court directed the School Selection Committee to forward the statement of interview dated 23.06.2019 to the State Selection Board. The Board was directed to process and consider the statement in accordance with law and thereafter forward the proposal to the State Government for appointing the petitioner as regular Principal of National Higher Secondary School, Lumding.

The entire exercise was ordered to be completed within six weeks from receipt of the certified judgment, with the petitioner required to place the certified copy before the authorities within one week.

The parties were left to bear their own costs.