Recommendatory government advisory for recruitment preference creates no enforceable right for unsuccessful candidates.

The applicants were engaged as Lab Technicians on a contractual basis at Lady Hardinge Medical College (Respondent No. 2) under the ERCP Package-II specifically for COVID-19 relief duties

Their contractual services concluded on March 31, 2022, upon the expiry of the scheme

The applicants sought the benefit of a Union of India communication dated May 3, 2021, which recommended that healthcare workers completing 100 days of COVID duty be given "preference" in regular government appointments

In a prior litigation (O.A. 855/2022), the Tribunal directed the respondents to "consider" the applicants' claims in light of the May 3 advisory

Subsequently, the respondents conducted a regular recruitment process via notices issued in 2021 and 2023/2024.

The applicants appeared for the competitive examination on February 25, 2024, but failed to secure the marks required for merit-based selection

They subsequently filed the present O.A. seeking a modification of the recruitment notices to incorporate the preference clause and alleging non-compliance with the earlier judicial direction

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to a direction for the modification of recruitment notices to incorporate a provision for the grant of preference after the selection process has concluded

2. Whether the respondents failed to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 855/2022

3. Whether the communication dated May 3, 2021, creates an enforceable right to claim preference or appointment

The Tribunal applied the landmark ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which established that contractual employees do not acquire a vested right to regularization or continuation beyond their contract period

It further relied on P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, holding that the determination of recruitment methods and eligibility criteria is a policy matter within the State's exclusive jurisdiction, not subject to Tribunal interference unless unconstitutional

The court invoked the principle from Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, stating that even inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment

Finally, the Tribunal applied the doctrine that the "rules of the game" cannot be altered after the selection process has commenced or concluded, as reinforced in Asha Rani Gupta v. Ravindera Memorial Public School

The Tribunal found that the May 3, 2021, document was an "advisory/recommendation" rather than a mandatory statutory notification, thus creating no enforceable right to a specific preference in Central Government institutions

Regarding the alleged non-compliance with O.A. 855/2022, the Tribunal noted the earlier order only required the respondents to "consider" the claim, which they were actively doing at a policy level; thus, no willful disobedience occurred

The Tribunal emphasized that the applicants had participated in the recruitment examination without protest and only challenged the process after failing to qualify on merit

Legally, the terms of recruitment cannot be changed mid-process or retrospectively once the selection is complete

Furthermore, the request to modify notices from 2021 was found to be significantly delayed and barred by the principle of laches

It held that the May 3, 2021, advisory did not confer a mandatory right and that the recruitment notices could not be altered post-facto

All interim protections were vacated, and the prayer for modification was rejected due to lack of merit and delay

No order as to costs was made