State Cannot Apply Executive Instructions To Override Recruitment Rules Midway; Selection Must Be Finalised Under Rules In Force On Advertisement Date: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing a civil appeal arising out of a judgment of the Patna High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the retrospective application of the Bihar Engineering Services Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022, to an ongoing recruitment process initiated under the 2019 Rules.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that “the State cannot rely on executive instructions to override statutory rules that were in force during the initiation of the recruitment process, especially to the detriment of candidates who had no notice of such weightage or age relaxation,” and held that the rules of selection could not be altered after the process had substantially progressed.

Advocates Manoj Kumar Srivastava, AOR and Anshul Narayan appeared for the appellants and respondents, respectively.

Background

The State of Bihar notified the Bihar Engineering Services Class-II Recruitment Rules, 2019, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, governing recruitment to the posts of Assistant Engineers. The Rules prescribed selection solely based on marks obtained in a written examination.

Pursuant thereto, the Bihar Public Service Commission issued four advertisements in 2019 inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil, Mechanical and Electrical) in different departments. The recruitment process commenced with the issuance of the advertisements, and written examinations were conducted in March 2022. Provisional merit lists were published in June and July 2022, followed by document verification.

Subsequently, in November 2022, the State notified the Bihar Engineering Services Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022, inserting Rule 8(5) into the 2019 Rules. The amendment introduced additional marks for contractual work experience and relaxation in the upper age limit for contractual Assistant Engineers, and was given retrospective effect from 06.03.2019.

Candidates who had already found a place in the provisional merit lists challenged the retrospective application of the amendment before the Patna High Court, contending that the selection criteria could not be altered after initiation of the recruitment process. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the amendment was a policy decision and that no vested right had accrued to the petitioners.

Aggrieved, the candidates approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the 2019 Rules and noted that the eligibility criteria and procedure for selection were clearly prescribed, with selection to be based solely on marks obtained in the written examination. The advertisements issued in 2019 reproduced these criteria without any reference to weightage or age relaxation for contractual experience.

The Court observed that the recruitment process had not only commenced but had reached an advanced stage, with written examinations completed, provisional merit lists published, and document verification undertaken. At this stage, the Court held, introduction of additional marks and age relaxation by retrospective amendment amounted to “rewriting the rules of the game” after it had already begun.

Relying on its earlier decisions, including K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and the Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, the Court reiterated that eligibility criteria and selection benchmarks notified at the commencement of the recruitment process cannot be altered midway unless the rules expressly permit such change, and even then, the change must satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Bench rejected the State’s reliance on executive memoranda issued in 2018 and 2021 providing for weightage to contractual employees, holding that executive instructions cannot override statutory recruitment rules. It noted that when the 2019 advertisements were issued, there was no indication that such memoranda would govern the selection, and candidates had participated in the process on the basis of the rules then in force.

The Court further held that the provisional nature of the merit list did not permit a fundamental alteration of the selection criteria. The list, the Apex Court observed, was provisional only for document verification and not subject to a change in the basis of merit itself.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the retrospective application of Rule 8(5) introduced by the 2022 Amendment Rules to the recruitment process initiated under the 2019 advertisements was unsustainable, and set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court.

The Court directed that the selection process pursuant to the 2019 advertisements be finalised strictly in accordance with the unamended 2019 Rules, without applying the weightage or age relaxation introduced in 2022.

It further directed that the final merit list be drawn and appointments be made within two months from the date of the judgment.

Cause Title: Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 24)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocates Manoj Kumar Srivastava, AOR, Akshansh Harsh, Kaveeta Wadia, Shashank Tripathi, AOR, Nitin Nautiyal

Respondents: Advocates Anshul Narayan, Vineeta Singh, Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Anshuman Harsh, Prem Prakash, AOR and Others

Click here to read/download Judgment