Selection criteria cannot be altered by applying weightage not specified in the advertisement after the recruitment process commences.

Respondent No. 2 (MAHAGENCO) issued Advertisement No. 01/2023 for the post of Junior Officer (Security).

The selection process comprised an Online Test (120 marks) and a Physical Efficiency Test (PET) / Psychometric Test (40 marks), totaling 160 marks.

Petitioner No. 1 secured 133/160 marks, and Petitioner No. 2 secured 108/160 marks.

Subsequent to the examinations, the Respondents published a select list by applying a "50% weightage" to each of the two tests.

This modification altered the merit positions, resulting in the selection of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who had secured lower aggregate marks than the petitioners.

The petitioners challenged this process as an illegal change to the selection criteria midway through the recruitment.

The court primarily applied the "rules of the game" doctrine predicated on the rule against arbitrariness under Article 14 and the right to equality in public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court [2024], which establishes that selection criteria notified at the commencement of a recruitment process cannot be changed midway.

The court further cited K. Manjushree v. State of AP (2008) for the principle that introducing minimum marks or weightage after the selection process has concluded constitutes an impermissible change to the rules.

Additionally, it referenced Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar (2020), holding that keeping candidates in the dark about selection criteria changes until results are published is arbitrary.

The court observed that the advertisement specified a 120-mark Online Test and a 40-mark PET but contained no clause regarding 50% weightage for either component.

It determined that Clause 21, which reserved the right to "modify or cancel" the process, did not grant the State unfettered discretion to introduce new evaluation metrics that fundamentally altered the outcome.

The court reasoned that allowing the State to apply unspecified weightage post-examination vests arbitrary power in the authorities, as they could theoretically shift weightage to favor specific candidates.

By applying weightage only after the marks were known, the Respondents unfairly advantaged candidates with higher PET scores over those with higher Online Test scores, contrary to the total marks system established in the advertisement.

Consequently, the court found the selection process violated the legitimate expectations of the candidates for a fair and transparent selection.

It ruled that the modification was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The court quashed the contested selection results regarding the petitioners and directed the Respondents to select and issue appointment orders to Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, as they secured higher aggregate marks than the selected private respondents.

The Rule was made absolute.