Retrospective rule amendments cannot reopen concluded recruitment processes or violate equality of opportunity in public employment.

The Appellants, holding Degrees in Optometry, challenged the selection process for the post of Ophthalmic Assistant initiated by the Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB) via a Notification dated 17.02.2023.

The Notification limited eligibility to candidates with a two-year Diploma or a condensed Para-Medical course.

While a Writ Petition was pending, the Government issued G.O.(Ms) No.180 dated 17.06.2025, amending the Service Rules with retrospective effect from 01.09.2022 to include Degree holders.

By the time of the amendment, the 2023 recruitment process had concluded, and 83 candidates had been appointed.

The Writ Court dismissed the Appellants' challenge on 24.11.2025, leading to this Intra Court appeal.

1. Whether the selection process concluded under the original 2023 Notification remains valid despite a subsequent retrospective amendment to the Service Rules.

2. Whether Degree holders can claim a right to participate in an already concluded recruitment process based on a retrospective rule change.

The Court applied the mandate of equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Section 25, Explanation (II) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which stipulates that where a Diploma is prescribed as a qualification, a Degree in the same subject shall be deemed a higher qualification.

Recruitment must be governed by the qualifications prescribed in the specific Recruitment Notification at the time of its issuance.

The Court reasoned that at the time the MRB issued the Recruitment Notification in 2023, the prevailing Special Rules did not include Degree holders, and thus the MRB’s exclusion of the Appellants was not legally infirm.

Although G.O.(Ms) No.180 granted retrospective eligibility from 2022, the Court held that reopening a concluded selection process where 83 candidates were already appointed would violate Article 14 and 16.

The Court observed that such a move would cause large-scale repercussions, as numerous other eligible Degree holders might have also been excluded.

It concluded that the retrospective amendment can only be applied to ensuing recruitment processes to ensure fair competition among all newly eligible candidates.

The Appellants have no right to participate in a concluded selection process; their eligibility as Degree holders under the amended rules will apply only to future recruitment cycles.

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal, upholding the order of the Writ Court; no costs were awarded, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.