Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. In the latter part of the judgement, it was observed that NRP was introduced by the State Government to bring more transparency and fairness in the process of recruitment in larger public interest and to bring greater uniformity. In such situation, the Court observed that interference in the policy decision of the State is not warranted. Further, it was said that the present case does not attract principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation as claimed by the appellants. It was also observed that mere completion of process of selection to the post of Enrolled Followers does not confer any indefeasible right of appointment on the appellants. As such, it was concluded that interjection in the ongoing recruitment process was not because of the change of the government or political dispensation, but due to change of policy in larger public interest.

13. Some of the writ petitioners had filed these appeals challenging the judgment of the High Court while some of the appellants who were affected by the impugned judgment sought permission to challenge the same as such these appeals assailing the judgment of the High Court have been heard together.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS:

14. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Pallav Shishodia has vehemently argued and submitted that appellants had applied for the post of Enrolled Followers and participated in the selection process. On completion of the selection process, they were granted tokens and called to concerned police stations for character verification. The said recruitment process was undertaken as specified by TSR Act and TSR Rules. Thus, cancelling such process of selection in the wake of NRP, without amending the TSR Act and TSR Rules, is not based on valid statutory backing which is arbitrary and illegal. It was submitted that once a recruitment process begins, it cannot be changed midway by executive instructions, i.e., by bringing the NRP and issuing the Cancellation Memorandum for ongoing recruitment process. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others 1. It was also submitted, that as per Clause (2) of NRP, its 1 (2025) 2 SCC 1, 2024 INSC 847.

applicability is prospective hence it cannot be made applicable on the pending recruitment processes.

15. It was also contended that once a recruitment process is in progress in terms of the relevant statute, no policy decision can stall and/or cancel the process of recruitment. In the facts of this case, when selection process was completed, and appellants were selected provisionally, they have a legitimate expectation of appointment, which is not against the public policy. To buttress the said contention, reliance has been placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Sivanandan C.T. and Others vs. High Court of Kerala and Others 2.

FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:

9. Learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 05.08.2019 allowed the writ petition and quashed the Cancellation Memorandum, as well as TPSC notification dated 22.11.2018 to the extent of their applicability to the post of Inspector of Boilers.

The Court observed that the factual matrix and legal issues involved herein were squarely covered by its earlier Single Bench judgment dated 14.05.2019 in Samudra Debbarma v. State of Tripura, W.P. (C) No. 831 of 2018 (upheld with modification by Division Bench on 03.12.2019 in W.A. No. 142 of 2019, which is also challenged in connected Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-4468 of 2023 titled as State of Tripura and Anr. vs. Samudra Debbarma and Ors.). It was observed that recruitment rules cannot be changed midway once the recruitment process has begun. Further, where a recruitment is governed by a subordinate legislation enacted under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, then no executive instructions can override it, unless an amendment is made in that legislation. The Court further observed that once a candidate applies for recruitment pursuant to an advertisement under the then existing rules, he acquires a right to be considered for selection under those rules, unless any amendment is brought to the rules that is retrospective in nature. As the NRP is consciously given prospective effect, hence it is not applicable on the subject recruitment process. The Court directed the State to complete the selection process and publish the results and make recommendations within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was assailed before Division Bench in writ appeal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.