Unnotified Draft Recruitment Rules Cannot Govern Selection; Recruitment Vitiated Ab Initio If Criteria Altered Midway: J&K And Ladakh High Court
The High Court held that recruitment must strictly adhere to the qualifications notified in the advertisement, and reliance on unnotified draft rules or undisclosed criteria violates equality principles and renders the selection invalid.
Justice Sindhu Sharma, Justice Shahzad Azeem, Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a recruitment process cannot be sustained when eligibility criteria are altered during the selection or when unnotified draft Recruitment Rules are invoked to justify selections inconsistent with the advertisement.
The Court was hearing two connected writ petitions challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal decision that had quashed a select list and wait list for the post of Knitting Instructor after finding that the recruitment authority had changed the criteria midway and introduced additional qualifications not disclosed to candidates.
A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem observed: “The un-notified draft Recruitment Rules cannot even be made the basis for the selection and recruitment against a substantive post. Once the Petitioners have themselves relied upon three advertisement notifications issued by the Board for recruitment to the post of Knitting Instructor, wherein the qualification prescribed was not in line with the draft Rules, inasmuch as finally a qualification which even was not mentioned in the draft Recruitment Rules was taken into consideration, in that event, the plea of the Petitioners that the recruitment was made as per the draft Recruitment Rules is also bereft of legal sanctity because such un-notified draft Recruitment Rules legally cannot override the educational qualification or the criteria of selection as notified in the advertisement notification”.
Furthermore, while relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in TejPrakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court (2025), the Bench reiterated that “eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit”.
Background
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated for seven posts of Knitting Instructor pursuant to a departmental reference. The advertisement prescribed a qualification of 10+2 with a Diploma in Knitting from ITI.
Candidates were shortlisted, and interviews were scheduled. During interviews, however, the recruiting authority sought clarification on whether candidates possessing diplomas in Textile, Textile Technology, Handloom Textile, or related fields could also be considered. The department responded that qualifications prescribed under recruitment rules should be treated as applicable.
Subsequently, a notification informed shortlisted candidates possessing diploma qualifications in Knitting/Textile from recognised institutes that their interviews would be conducted.
After completion of the process, certain candidates were selected while others were placed on a waiting list. One unsuccessful candidate challenged the selection before the Tribunal, alleging that the criteria had been altered during the process and that ineligible candidates were permitted to participate.
The Central Administrative Tribunal accepted the challenge, holding that the recruiting authority had illegally changed eligibility criteria midway and thereby violated Article 14.
Court’s Observation
The Court first addressed the plea that selected candidates were condemned unheard. Upon examining the record, it was found that notices had been issued through registered post and deemed service was recorded. Relying on statutory presumptions and Supreme Court precedent, the Bench held that service by registered post constitutes valid service and therefore the plea of non-notice lacked legal force.
The Court rejected the contention that the challenger lacked locus because she had participated in the selection process. It held that participation does not bar a candidate from challenging illegality in the process, particularly where constitutional violations are alleged. It relied on precedents holding that a candidate accepts the procedure by participating, not the illegality.
The Bench noted that multiple advertisements issued within a short span prescribed different qualifications for the same post, demonstrating a lack of uniformity in eligibility standards.
It further observed that several selected candidates possessed qualifications not prescribed either in the advertisement or in draft recruitment rules, which indicated deviation from the notified criteria and inconsistency in evaluation.
The Court emphasised that at the time of selection, no statutory Recruitment Rules were in force and the reliance placed on draft rules could not justify deviation from advertised qualifications. Even if draft rules existed, they could not override conditions expressly notified to candidates.
The Bench reaffirmed the settled principle that eligibility criteria notified at the commencement of recruitment cannot be altered midway unless permitted by governing rules and consistent with Article 14. It relied on binding Supreme Court precedent reiterating that any such change must satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.
On facts, the Court found that qualifications were added clandestinely and not disclosed publicly, and that certain selected candidates held qualifications neither prescribed in the advertisement nor in draft rules. Such deviations rendered the process arbitrary and discriminatory.
It was therefore agreed with the Tribunal that the recruitment was vitiated from inception due to blatant violations, including the inclusion of ineligible candidates and non-disclosure of criteria.
The Bench clarified that the challenge before it was in personam rather than in rem, and therefore, it was not necessary to examine the legality of other select lists not directly before it. Nonetheless, it directed competent authorities to take remedial steps consistent with the law.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the Tribunal’s findings disclosed no illegality or perversity and that the recruitment process suffered from fundamental defects arising from undisclosed and inconsistent eligibility criteria. It therefore upheld the Tribunal’s order and dismissed both writ petitions.
It further held that where recruitment is tainted by procedural illegality and violation of equality principles, the entire process becomes unsustainable in law. Interim directions, if any, stood vacated, and pending applications were disposed of.
Cause Title: Sapna Devi & Anr. v. Sheetal & Ors. c/w J&K Services Selection Board v. Sheetal & Ors.
Appearances
Petitioners: Abhinav Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Abhirash Sharma, Advocate.
Respondents: Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting Counsel, vice Raman Sharma, AAG; Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG.
