New Delhi: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the rules or eligibility criteria for government job recruitment cannot be modified midway through or after the recruitment process has begun, unless existing rules explicitly permit such changes. This decision was made in the case Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, and was delivered by a Bench consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, following the reservation of judgment in July 2023.

The legal issue in question was whether authorities could alter selection criteria for a public post during or after the recruitment process, essentially changing the "rules of the game" mid-process. The Court upheld the prior Supreme Court ruling in *K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008)*, affirming that recruitment rules should not be changed once the selection process is underway.

The Constitution Bench’s decision included several key findings:
1. The recruitment process formally begins with the call for applications and ends with filling vacancies.
2. Eligibility criteria cannot be altered midway unless permitted by current rules.
3. Recruitment rules must comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, ensuring non-arbitrariness and equality.
4. Placement on a select list does not grant an absolute right to employment.
5. The K Manjusree judgment remains valid law, despite not referencing the Marwaha judgment of 1973.

Case Background

This case involved the recruitment of thirteen translator positions for the Rajasthan High Court. Following a written exam and interview, only three out of twenty-one candidates were declared successful based on a 75 percent minimum score requirement, which was added by the High Court Chief Justice after the process began. The remaining candidates challenged this post hoc change, arguing it was an impermissible adjustment of the "rules of the game."

Their writ petition was dismissed by the High Court, leading them to appeal to the Supreme Court. They cited the *K Manjusree* decision, which strictly prohibits changing eligibility criteria mid-process. A prior Supreme Court order in March 2023 acknowledged that applying the *Manjusree* precedent would likely mandate the appointment of all thirteen candidates. However, a three-judge bench observed that such an application might not serve the public interest or support efficient administration, referencing the 1973 *Marwaha* case, which allowed authorities to maintain high standards by setting eligibility scores above the minimum.

The case was subsequently referred to a larger Bench to reach a definitive conclusion on these complex issues.