This court case Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v Rajasthan High Court & Ors. concentrates on selection criteria modifications made within a continuing recruitment procedure. The court emphasizes that modification of recruitment rules is prohibited once a selection process starts to maintain fair and transparent public employment procedures.

Download Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan PDF

Historical Context of Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court started recruiting Translator positions in 2009 for a total of 13 roles. The candidate needed a postgraduate degree in English Literature along with three years of service experience in the High Court's institution and law graduates had a preferred status. The qualifications for Translator positions along with their selection criteria came from 'The Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002'. 

Petition and Claims of Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan

After the examination on December 19, 2009, only three candidates were declared successful. The decision by the Chief Justice to establish a 75% qualifying examination mark after results were announced became the reason behind this outcome. The candidates who did not pass protested when the court introduced an examination minimum requirement following the exam because they felt it altered the game rules in violation of fair practices.

Supreme Court’s Response

The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process. According to the Court, the process of modifying selection criteria after the recruiting cycle has begun creates uncertainty that breaches Articles 14  and 16 of the constitution because it makes applications seem unfair and arbitrary. 

Arguments Supporting Petitioners

• Violation of Fairness: The candidates build their applications based upon the requirements listed in the advertisement. The addition of new evaluation standards after the examination period threatens the fairness of the assessment process.
• Legitimate Expectation: Candidates had a legitimate expectation that the selection process would adhere to the initially stated criteria. Altering these criteria without prior notice violates this expectation.
• Arbitrariness: Changing selection criteria after the process has begun can lead to arbitrary decisions, which are prohibited under Article 14 of the  Constitution.

Arguments Supporting Respondents

• Ensuring Meritocracy:The establishment of high standards during recruitment allows public service organizations to select only highly qualified applicants who preserve service quality.
• Administrative Discretion: The appointing authority has the discretion to set selection criteria to ensure the suitability of candidates for the position.

No Vested Right: Candidates do not have a vested right to selection merely by appearing for the examination; the authority can set qualifying standards to ensure competence.

The core issue was whether the selection criteria for a recruitment process can be altered after the process has commenced and, if so, whether such changes violate the principles of fairness and equal opportunity enshrined in the Constitution.

Legal Provisions Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Article 16: Ensures equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

According to the Supreme Court the selection criteria cannot be modified after recruitment begins. The alteration of selection criteria after advertising breaks the rules of fair competition because candidates develop their preparation strategies based on initial specifications. The Court stated that all alterations to selection methods must be established before the process starts to preserve public trust in hiring procedures.

Recent Amendments and Developments Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan

After the court’s judgment, there was a strong focus on keeping recruitment fair and transparent. Public authorities must set clear selection rules before starting the process. Changing rules midway or failing to define them properly can lead to legal trouble and violate the Constitution.

Conclusion

The Tej Prakash Pathak case shows the need for both fairness and transparency in public recruitment. All candidates must be judged by the same clear standards from start to finish. These rules should not change once the process begins. When public bodies follow this approach, people trust the system more. It also upholds equality, prevents discrimination, and protects the basic rights of all applicants.