Selection guidelines issued mid-process may apply if introduced before the relevant stage and consistent with governing rules.

The respondents issued a notification dated 7 August 2021 for selection to 20 posts of Junior Engineer (Workshop) under the 25% Intermediate Apprentice Quota. The applicant, a Technician Grade-I, participated in the written examination and was initially empanelled at Serial No. 15 in the unreserved category by order dated 8 December 2022.

The notification prescribed a written examination followed by scrutiny of service records and APARs, with selection based on merit.

During the selection process, the respondents issued guidelines dated 14 December 2021 prescribing the allocation of 30 Record of Service marks: 15 marks for APARs/working reports, 10 marks for awards and punishments, and 5 marks for academic or technical qualifications.

On the basis of representations by candidates, the initial select list was cancelled and a revised select list dated 1 February 2023 was issued. The applicant was excluded from the revised list.

The selected candidates were sent for 52 weeks’ training, and 19 candidates were subsequently promoted and posted as Junior Engineers by order dated 17 February 2024.

The applicant challenged the retrospective application of the guidelines, cancellation of the original select list, his exclusion from the revised list, and the consequential promotions, including the promotion of respondent no. 22.

During the proceedings, an interim order of the Tribunal was set aside by the Allahabad High Court, which held that Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 did not bar the respondents from proceeding with the selection during the pendency of the Original Application.

1. Whether the respondents could apply the guidelines dated 14 December 2021 to a selection process initiated by notification dated 7 August 2021, after commencement of the selection process.

2. Whether the guidelines dated 14 December 2021 altered the notified eligibility or selection criteria, or merely prescribed the procedure for assessing the 30 marks allocated to the Record of Service.

3. Whether the respondents could cancel the select list dated 8 December 2022 and issue a revised select list dated 1 February 2023 without issuing a separate notice to the applicant.

4. Whether the consequential promotions and placement order dated 17 February 2024, including the promotion of respondent no. 22, were legally sustainable.

The Tribunal principally applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., 2024 INSC 847, which holds that a recruitment process commences with the advertisement and ordinarily ends with the filling of vacancies; notified eligibility criteria cannot be changed midway unless authorised by the applicable rules or advertisement and consistent with Articles 14 and 16; and administrative instructions may fill gaps where the statutory rules are silent, provided the procedure is transparent, non-arbitrary and rationally connected with the object of selection.

The Tribunal also applied paragraph 8 of Railway Board Master Circular No. 31, which allocates 30 marks for Record of Service and requires consideration of training performance, service records and APARs/CRs.

Paragraph 13(v) of the same Master Circular requires notice to selected candidates where selection proceedings are cancelled because of procedural irregularity or malpractice.

Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was considered in light of the High Court’s ruling that the provision did not prohibit continuation of the selection during the pendency of the Original Application.

The Tribunal distinguished between changing a notified selection criterion and prescribing the method for applying an existing criterion.

The notification dated 7 August 2021 expressly provided for scrutiny of service records and APARs and referred to paragraph 8 of Master Circular No. 31, which already prescribed 30 marks for Record of Service.

The guidelines dated 14 December 2021 did not introduce a new criterion or increase the weightage; they merely subdivided the existing 30 marks among APARs, awards/punishments and academic or technical qualifications and specified the method of assessment.

They therefore filled a procedural gap, reduced discretion and enhanced objectivity.

Applying Tej Prakash Pathak, the Tribunal held that a procedure or benchmark for a later stage of selection could be prescribed after commencement of the recruitment process, provided it was prescribed before that stage was completed.

The written examination was conducted on 25 September 2022, while the guidelines had been issued on 14 December 2021. Scrutiny of service records and the first empanelment occurred on 8 December 2022; consequently, the guidelines were issued before the relevant second stage was completed.

Their application was therefore neither retrospective in an impermissible sense nor inconsistent with the notified selection scheme.

As to the cancellation of the first list, the Tribunal acknowledged that paragraph 13(v) contemplated notice to selected candidates. However, the applicant had himself submitted representations after publication of the first list, challenging the proposed application of the guidelines, and the respondents considered and communicated their decision on 31 January 2023 before issuing the revised list.

The Tribunal consequently found no material prejudice or violation of natural justice.

Since the revised selection was valid, the consequential training and promotion orders also did not suffer from legal infirmity.

The cancellation of the select list dated 8 December 2022, issuance of the revised select list dated 1 February 2023, and consequential promotions and placement dated 17 February 2024 were held to be lawful.

The applicant was therefore not entitled to appointment or any consequential relief; the Original Application and connected Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed, with parties directed to bear their own costs.