Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

31. We do not wish to reiterate the situation when two Rules are sought to be pitted against each other, as we find no such repugnancy that has arisen. A court of law is expected to reconcile the rules, and therefore, not to foresee or presume conflicts, if any.
32. The respondents have also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of K. Manjusree (supra). However, in our considered view, the facts of the aforesaid decision are quite different from the present case. A change was introduced for the first time after the entire process was over, based on the decision made by the Full Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 Court qua the cut off. Secondly, it is not as if the private respondents were nonsuited from participating in the recruitment process. The principle governing changing the rules of game would not have any application when the change is with respect to selection process but not the qualification or eligibility. In other words, after the advertisement is made followed by an application by a candidate with further progress, a rule cannot be brought in, disqualifying him to participate in the selection process. It is only in such cases, the principle aforesaid will have an application or else it will hamper the power of the employer to recruit a person suitable for a job.

(vi). Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540; paragraphs no. 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 whereof Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 are reproduced herein below:-

"10. Under the scheme of our Constitution an absolute and non-negotiable prohibition against retrospective law-making is made only with reference to the creation of crimes. Any other legal right or obligation could be created, altered, extinguished retrospectively by the sovereign law-making bodies. However, such drastic power is required to be exercised in a manner that it does not conflict with any other constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as, Articles 14 and 16, etc. Changing the "rules of game" either midstream or after the game is played is an aspect of retrospective law-making power.

15. No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the "rules of the game" insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 1293], etc. in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the "rules of the game" stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore, order that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard."

19. The learned counsel for the respondent- Commission has contended, by referring to the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. (supra), that the expression changing the rules of the game midway or after the game is played, pertains to two situations; (i) Eligibility criteria of candidates seeking employment; or (ii) Method and Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 manner of making selection of suitable candidates. It is contended that as far as the second situation is concerned, a three Judges Bench, in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. (Supra), has referred the issue, as to whether the principle of not permitting the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the "rules of the game" insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned shall also be applicable in the context of the "rules of the game"