Rajasthan HC: Authorities cannot retrospectively debar candidates from recruitment after allowing them to complete the selection process without a hearing

In the 2018 recruitment for Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III, the petitioners were declared successful, but were denied appointment during document verification because their B.P.Ed. degrees/educational documents were not found genuine.

The Director, Secondary Education, informed the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (“RSSB”) on 10 July 2020 and requested appropriate legal or departmental proceedings; however, no criminal or departmental proceedings, or formal debarment order, was initiated at that stage.

The petitioners subsequently obtained B.P.Ed. degrees from universities claimed to be recognised by the UGC and participated in the 2022 recruitment.

They were successful, placed in the final merit list, and their names were recommended for appointment subject to document and character verification.

Nevertheless, the Department informed the RSSB that their earlier conduct disentitled them from consideration, without undertaking fresh verification of their subsequently obtained qualifications.

On 9 April 2024, the RSSB permanently debarred the petitioners from appearing in all future RSSB examinations.

The order was passed after completion of the 2022 recruitment process, without being individually communicated to the petitioners or giving them an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioners challenged the denial of appointment and the consequential retrospective application of the debarment order.

The Court applied Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021, under which a candidate found guilty of submitting fabricated or tampered documents, suppressing material information, or using other irregular or improper means may be debarred permanently or for a specified period from examinations, interviews, or government employment.

It also applied Clause 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board Regulations for Prevention of Use of Unfair Means in RSSB Examination, 2016, which requires prior notice, an opportunity to submit a representation or be heard, consideration of the representation, and a reasoned order before imposing a penalty.

The Court further relied on the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, legitimate expectation, and the rule against retrospective operation of a subsequent disabling order.

Although the authorities possess power to take criminal or administrative action against candidates submitting forged documents, that power must be exercised in accordance with the prescribed procedure and cannot ordinarily be used retrospectively to defeat rights arising from a completed selection process.

The Court held that the RSSB’s 9 April 2024 order was issued after the 2022 recruitment had been completed and after the petitioners had been permitted to participate and had secured positions in the merit list.

Since the petitioners had neither been served with notice nor given an opportunity of hearing, the order violated Clause 7 of the 2016 Regulations, Rule 20 of the 2021 Rules, and natural justice.

The Court distinguished the power to punish submission of forged documents from the manner in which that power was exercised: the authorities remained free to initiate appropriate proceedings, but they could not impose a permanent debarment order retrospectively so as to invalidate participation in the already-concluded 2022 recruitment.

The respondents’ failure to act promptly after learning of the alleged irregularity in 2020, coupled with their allowing the petitioners to participate in the 2022 selection, prevented them from subsequently applying the 2024 debarment order to that recruitment.

Appointment, however, remained conditional upon verification that the petitioners’ subsequently submitted qualifications were genuine and upon their merit in the relevant categories.

The Court declared the petitioners’ permanent debarment from all RSSB examinations illegal and arbitrary because it was imposed without the prescribed procedure and could not be retrospectively applied to the 2022 recruitment.

The respondents were directed to verify the petitioners’ marksheets and educational qualifications within four months.

If the documents were found genuine, the petitioners were to be appointed as PTI Grade-III candidates in accordance with their merit and respective categories.

No back wages were granted, but the petitioners were held entitled to seniority from the date on which a candidate junior to them was appointed.