Selection criteria may be changed mid-recruitment when amended rules permit and changes precede relevant stages.

The respondent issued Advertisement No. 03/2015 inviting applications for the post of Technician in the pay scale of ₹5,200–20,200 with Grade Pay of ₹1,900; the last date for applications was 30 December 2015.

The advertisement reserved to NBRI/CSIR the authority to determine matters relating to eligibility, mode of selection, and the conduct of examinations, interviews and trade tests.

After the advertisement, the Department of Personnel and Training issued Office Memoranda dated 9 October 2015 and 29 December 2015 discontinuing interviews for specified junior-level posts and permitting skill or trade tests to continue.

CSIR subsequently amended its Service Rules by letter dated 9 November 2017. Under the amended procedure, candidates were first required to qualify in a trade test and thereafter appear in a competitive written examination; the final merit list was to be based on the written examination, with the interview component removed.

By letter dated 13 July 2018, the respondent informed the applicant that the trade test would be qualifying in nature. The applicant appeared in and qualified the trade test, and thereafter appeared in the written examination held on 28 January 2019.

During the proceedings, the respondent published a select list on 16 December 2019, subject to the outcome of the OA.

Whether the respondent could alter the mode of selection after issuance of the advertisement by replacing the interview/trade-test-based process with a qualifying trade test followed by a competitive written examination.

Whether the amended selection procedure and the qualifying nature of the trade test were permissible under the applicable rules and advertisement, having been communicated before the relevant stages of selection were conducted.

The Tribunal applied the “rules of the game” doctrine governing public recruitment, under which the eligibility criteria and the method and manner of selection ordinarily cannot be altered after commencement of the recruitment process.

It relied principally on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 INSC 847, which held that recruitment begins with issuance of the advertisement and ends with filling the vacancies; notified eligibility criteria cannot be changed midway unless the extant rules or advertisement permit such change, and any alteration must satisfy Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the requirements of non-arbitrariness, transparency and rational nexus.

The decision further recognised that recruiting authorities may prescribe procedures and benchmarks for different stages, provided they are authorised by the applicable rules or advertisement and are fixed before the relevant stage is conducted.

The Tribunal also relied on the amended CSIR Service Rules, effective from 9 November 2017, which prescribed a qualifying trade test followed by a competitive written examination and removed the interview requirement.

The Tribunal held that the amendment was not an impermissible retrospective alteration of the selection process.

The advertisement itself authorised NBRI/CSIR to determine the mode of selection and the conduct of the examination, interview and trade test.

The subsequent change was also based on Government policy aimed at eliminating interviews for junior-level posts and promoting objective, transparent and merit-based selection.

CSIR formally amended the applicable rules before the trade test and written examination were conducted.

The respondent informed the applicant in advance that the trade test would be qualifying, and the applicant participated in both the trade test and written examination without demur.

Applying Tej Prakash Pathak, the Tribunal found that the amended procedure had a rational nexus with fair and objective selection, was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and did not take the applicant by surprise because it was notified before the relevant stages.

The applicant’s challenge, raised only after participation in the examination and publication of the question paper and answer key, was therefore untenable.

The qualifying trade test followed by a competitive written examination was valid because it was supported by the amended CSIR Rules, consistent with the advertisement and Government policy, and communicated before the relevant selection stages.

The OA was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit; the associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.