Bombay HC: Selection Rules Cannot Be Changed After Recruitment Process

The Bombay High Court held that altering the selection criteria after completion of the selection process by introducing a cut-off date was arbitrary, violated Article 14, and defeated the petitioner’s legitimate expectation of appointment.

A Bench of Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna heard a writ petition challenging communications dated 14th March, 2024 and 27th March, 2024 that excluded a selected candidate from appointment to the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer on the ground that his Membership certificate from the Institute of Fire Engineers (UK) was not acceptable after a cut‑off date.

Decision Summary: The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned communications and directed the Panvel Municipal Corporation to issue a letter of appointment to the petitioner if otherwise found fit for the post, observing that selection criteria could not be altered after selection in a manner contrary to the Recruitment Rules.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. The High Court of Jharkhand & Anr., that precluding a candidate from appointment in violation of the Recruitment Rules without there being a finding on such candidate’s unsuitability, is an action which would fail the Article 14 test and shall be held to be arbitrary. It has been held that if the High Court is permitted to alter the selection criteria after the performance of individual candidates is assessed, that would constitute alteration of the laid down Recruitment Rules. Further, the submission on behalf of the High Court Administration in that case namely, that Rule 14 permits them to alter the selection criteria after the selection process is concluded and marks are declared has been held to be not a proper exposition of the said provision. In the present case the Petitioner had met the requisite qualification and it was only after the selection of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.3 sought to alter the selection criteria by issuing the impugned letter dated 14th March, 2024. This would be impermissible as being contrary to the Recruitment Rules which are till date very much in vogue."

Background

The petition arose from a public advertisement dated 12th July, 2023 issued by the Panvel Municipal Corporation for multiple posts which included the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer and recognized Membership of the Institute of Fire Engineers (UK) (IFE‑UK) as a Grade I qualification. The petitioner, who held the Membership certificate of IFE‑UK and claimed over six years’ experience, was recommended and called for document verification on 7th March, 2024. During verification, a complaint prompted the Directorate of Maharashtra Fire Service to issue a communication dated 14th March, 2024 introducing a cut‑off date of 3rd November, 2017 for acceptance of IFE‑UK certificates; this was followed by the Corporation’s rejection letter dated 27th March, 2024 excluding the petitioner from appointment.

The petitioner challenged those communications contending that the Recruitment Rules in force, and an earlier letter dated 19th July, 2023 from the Directorate, recognized Membership of IFE‑UK and that the post‑selection change was impermissible. The Corporation and the Directorate justified the cut‑off by reference to higher court decisions concerning recognition of technical qualifications and to central Government Office Memoranda which affected equivalence granted to certain professional bodies. The respondents further relied on the regulatory position under technical education rules and distance education approvals, invoking the role of regulatory frameworks including approval processes under statutory schemes such as the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985.

The Court examined the respondents’ reliance on judgments addressing courses run by deemed universities and the role of statutory regulators for technical education and concluded that the Orissa Lift Irrigation line of authority could not be extended to displace the Recruitment Rules in the present facts. The Court noted the petitioner’s legitimate expectation to appointment under the extant Recruitment Rules and applied the doctrine of fairness and non‑arbitrariness, referring to the principles explained in Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. v. High Court of Kerala & Ors on legitimate expectation and to the prohibition on altering selection criteria after assessment as applied in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. ( "(2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 512": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 228).

Result: The Court quashed and set aside the communications dated 14th March, 2024 and 27th March, 2024 and directed the Panvel Municipal Corporation to issue a letter of appointment to the petitioner on the basis of selection under the Recruitment Rules and the subject advertisement, if otherwise found fit. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 5667 OF 2024
Case Title: Sujit Manohar Patil v. The Panvel Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Appearances: 
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prasad K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ramesh D. Soni, Mr. Rushar Momaiyah i/b. Ram and Co.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand for Respondent No.1 – Panvel Municipal Corporation; Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. with Smt. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - State

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 211