Recruitment process not vitiated by amended eligibility criteria if extended application period allows equal opportunity.

The applicants filed the present O.A. challenging an advertisement for Tradesman Mate posts

The initial advertisement, published in Employment News dated 31.12.2011-06.01.2012, stipulated an ITI exam in the respective trade as the required qualification

The last date for applications was 20.01.2012

Subsequently, a Corrigendum dated 02.04.2012 was issued by the respondents, merging all Technical Trade posts as Mate SSK, relaxing the essential educational qualification to include matriculation as an alternative, and extending the last date for application to 29.06.2012

The applicants contended that these "rules of the game" were changed after the initial closing date

They further alleged that the respondents illegally filled 108 posts of Mate (SSK) by direct recruitment, despite the Military Engineer Services (Industrial Group ‘D’ posts) Recruitment Rules 2004 requiring 100% promotion

The applicants' counsel also argued that the Recruitment Rules (RRs) that came into force on 08.07.2013 should have applied and that the action was in violation of the applicable RRs

One applicant made a representation on 29.10.2015 and an RTI application on 23.12.2015, receiving a reply that recruitment for Mate (SSK) was as per Local Recruitment Sanction (LRS) 2011-12, but the LRS did not sanction recruitment for Mate (SSK) directly

The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Matriculation was added as an alternate option to ITI qualification by competent authority for bonafide administrative/technical reasons, and the extension of the last date ensured equal opportunity

They asserted that the RRs 2013 were not operative at the relevant time and selections were completed on 13.02.2013 as per RRs 2004

They also stated that the feeder cadre for promotion, Mazdoor (Unskilled category), was abolished on 08.02.2011, making promotion impossible

Whether the change/relaxation of essential qualification through a Corrigendum after the initial last date of receipt of applications but before an extended last date for applications constitutes a violation of the "rules of the game" in the recruitment process

Whether the recruitment of candidates for Mate (SSK) through direct recruitment instead of promotion violated the applicable Recruitment Rules of 2004

Whether the selection process was vitiated by illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fides, warranting its quashing in its entirety

The court applied the principle that rules prevailing at the time when vacancies arose ordinarily govern the selection process, as established in precedents like *Union of India & Ors. v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146*, and *P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 927 of 2007, dated 23.02.2007*

However, this principle applies primarily where there is a clear statutory violation or criteria are altered after substantial progress/completion of selection without equal opportunity

The court also referred to its prior judgment in *Shivdeep Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 061/00017/2014* by a coordinate Bench at Chandigarh, which upheld similar amendments to eligibility criteria through corrigendum

A critical rule is that a completed selection process should not be interfered with unless there is cogent evidence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or clear violation of statutory rules

The court found that the "rules of the game" were not improperly changed because the Corrigendum dated 02.04.2012, which added Matriculation as an alternate qualification, also extended the last date for application to 29.06.2012

This meant that all eligible candidates had an equal opportunity to apply under the amended conditions, thus distinguishing it from a situation where eligibility criteria are altered after the selection process has substantially progressed or completed without affording equal opportunity

The respondents' clarification that Matriculation was an *alternate* option, not a *substitution* for ITI, and was added for bona fide administrative reasons was accepted

The court further noted that the recruitment process was completed on 13.02.2013, adhering to the 2004 RRs, well before the 2013 RRs became effective on 08.07.2013

The applicants failed to demonstrate that the inclusion of Matriculation as an alternate qualification derogated the 2004 Rules or that the 2013 RRs applied retrospectively

Regarding the contention of direct recruitment instead of promotion, the court accepted the respondents' argument that the feeder cadre (Mazdoor - Unskilled) had been abolished on 08.02.2011, making the promotional quota non-operational, a point which the applicants could not rebut

The court also found similarities with the *Shivdeep Singh* case, where a coordinate Bench upheld similar eligibility criteria amendments, finding no reason to take a different view

Ultimately, the applicants failed to provide cogent evidence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or clear statutory violation, or that unqualified candidates were appointed

It held that the amendment to the educational qualification through a Corrigendum, which also extended the application deadline, did not constitute an unlawful change to the "rules of the game" as it afforded equal opportunity to all candidates

The selection was found to be in compliance with the RRs 2004 as the 2013 RRs were not yet in force during the recruitment process

The argument against direct recruitment was rejected due to the abolition of the feeder promotional cadre

The applicants failed to demonstrate any illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, or clear violation of statutory rules sufficient to quash the selection

No order as to costs was made