Sri Raveendra B Manami vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present batch of writ petitions have been filed impugning the orders passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Application Nos.2688/2023, 956/2023, 1970/2023, 1310/2023 and 10432/2023 whereby the Circular dated 01.02.2023 has been set aside.

The petitioners are candidates aspiring for selection and appointment to various posts in the State services. Their grievance is that the State has altered the rules governing the selection process after its commencement by issuing the Circular dated 01.02.2023, thereby adversely affecting their rights.

Facts of each post of service has been summarised as under:

W.P.No.863/2024 c/w W.P.Nos.29056/2023, 9473/2024, 7927/2024 and W.A.No.1218/2023 (Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer and Engineer):

The present petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Tribunal in Application Nos. 2688 and 2689 of 2023, whereby the Tribunal set aside the Circular dated 01.02.2023 governing the application of reservation under Article 371J of the Constitution of India in favour of the candidates belonging to the Kalyana-Karnataka Region (formerly known as Hyderabad-Karnataka Region).

Article 371J was inserted by the Constitution (98th Amendment) Act, 2012, pursuant to which the President issued the State of Karnataka (Special Responsibility of Governor for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, on 24.10.2013, followed by the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, promulgated on 06.11.2013. The State Government subsequently framed the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) (Organisation of Local Cadres, Allotment and Transfer of Persons) Rules, 2013, on 29.01.2014.

As the procedure of applying reservation in direct recruitment was not specifically prescribed, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) issued successive circulars regulating recruitment to the Local and the Residual Parent Cadres. While the Circular dated 06.06.2020 provided for a common recruitment notification, with local candidates exercising an option regarding the cadre, the Circular dated 15.06.2022 prescribed for separate notifications and examinations for the two cadres, while retaining the earlier procedure for pending recruitments.

Thereafter, the impugned Circular dated 01.02.2023 was issued by the State which directed that the option exercised by candidates under the Circular dated 06.06.2020 would not determine their consideration. Candidates belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region were instead to be considered first against the Residual Parent Cadre and thereafter against the Local Cadre, if unsuccessful in the former cadre.

The dispute arose in connection with the recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer, Grade-I, in the Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation Department pursuant to Notification dated 21.02.2022. The Provisional Selection List was published on 17.08.2023 comprised 229 candidates under the Residual Parent Cadre and 59 candidates under the Local Cadre. The private respondents, who had applied under the Residual Parent Cadre but were unsuccessful, approached the Tribunal seeking a direction against the application of the Circular dated 01.02.2023 to the recruitment in question.

Vide order dated 08.11.2023, the Tribunal allowed the applications and set aside the impugned Circular, holding that it altered the allocation procedure retrospectively and deprived eligible local candidates of the benefits of Local Cadre reservation by considering them first against the Residual Parent Cadre on the basis of merit. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present proceedings challenging the Tribunal's order.

The present writ petition has been filed by the State challenging the order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.1970/2023, whereby the Circular dated 01.02.2023 was set aside and the Provisional Selection List dated 24.03.2023 was held to be untenable, with a direction to prepare a revised provisional list within three months from the date of the order of the Tribunal.

The State initiated recruitment to 70 posts of Special Reserve Sub-Inspector (SRSI) in the Karnataka State Reserve Police (KSRP) and Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB), pursuant to Notification dated 18.12.2021. The recruitment was governed in accordance with Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2020 applicable to KSRP and IRB, the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, and the Government Circular dated 06.06.2020, which prescribed the procedure for applying reservation to local and non-local cadres.

During the pendency of the recruitment process, the Government issued the impugned Circular dated 01.02.2023, directing that the candidates belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region be considered first against the Residual Parent Cadre, and thereafter, against the Local Cadre. The State applied the said procedure and published the Provisional Selection List on 24.03.2023, followed by the Final Selection List on 12.12.2023. Appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates, who had commenced training.

The respondent, who had applied for the post of Special Reserve Sub-Inspector, challenged the application of the Circular dated 01.02.2023 before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 01.01.2024, the Tribunal set aside the Circular and the Provisional Selection List, directing its revision. The State contends that the Tribunal failed to consider that the recruitment process had culminated in the publication of the final selection list and issuance of appointment orders by the time the impugned order was passed.

The present writ petitions have been filed by candidates who participated in the recruitment process for the post of Graduate Primary Teacher pursuant to the district-wise Notification dated 21.03.2022 issued for the districts of Koppal, Vijayanagar and Yadgiri. The recruitment provided for 80% reservation in the Local Cadre and 20% in the Non-Local Cadre, in accordance with the Government Circular dated 06.06.2020 and the reservation framework under Article 371J of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners applied for posts under the Residual Parent Cadre, while the private respondents, belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region, exercised their option for consideration under the Local Cadre. Following the written examination conducted on 21.05.2022 and 22.05.2022 and completion of document verification, the provisional selection list was published on 18.11.2022, including the petitioners under the Residual Parent Cadre.

Subsequently, the Government issued the impugned Circular dated 01.02.2023, directing that, in the pending recruitment processes where the final selection list had not been published, candidates belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region be considered first against the Residual Parent Cadre and thereafter against the Local Cadre, irrespective of the option exercised by them at the time of application.

Pursuant thereto, revised provisional selection lists were published on 27.02.2023, whereby local candidates who had originally opted for the Local Cadre were considered against the Residual Parent Cadre on the basis of merit, resulting in the displacement of the petitioners. Despite their objections, the final selection list was published on 08.03.2023, excluding the petitioners from selection.

The petitioners challenged the revised selection process before the Tribunal in Application No.10432/2023. The Tribunal dismissed the application vide order dated 22.09.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court, contending that the Tribunal failed to properly consider their challenge to the Circular dated 01.02.2023 and the consequential alteration of the selection process.

2304/2024 24251/2024 24410/2024 (Assistant Professor):

The present writ petitions have been filed by candidates challenging the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects in Government First Grade Colleges.

The State Government framed the Karnataka Education Department Services (Collegiate Education Department) (Recruitment of Assistant Professor) (Special) Rules, 2020, on 08.07.2020, governing recruitment to the said posts. Pursuant thereto, the Department of Collegiate Education issued a Notification dated 26.08.2021, notifying 1,242 vacancies, comprising 1,021 posts in the Residual Parent Cadre and 221 posts in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Cadre. The recruitment was to be conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) in accordance with the Special Rules, 2020, and the Government Circular dated 06.06.2020.

The petitioners, belonging to the non-local category, applied for the posts in various subjects and participated in the competitive examination. During the recruitment process, KEA required candidates belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region to indicate their preference for consideration under the Local Cadre or the Residual Parent Cadre, wherever eligible for both. Although provisional selection lists were prepared in accordance with the original notification and the Circular dated 06.06.2020, the list was not published.

Thereafter, the State issued the Circular dated 15.06.2022, withdrawing the earlier procedure while protecting pending recruitments. However, the Circular dated 01.02.2023 was issued subsequently, directing the authorities to apply a revised procedure to ongoing recruitments in which final selection lists had not been published. Under the revised procedure, candidates belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region were to be considered first against the Residual Parent Cadre and thereafter against the Local Cadre.

Pursuant thereto, KEA published a revised Provisional Selection List on 22.02.2023, followed by the Final Selection List on 03.03.2023. The petitioners contend that candidates who had originally opted for the Local Cadre were subsequently considered against the Residual Parent Cadre, resulting in their displacement and exclusion from the final selection.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the Tribunal in Application No.1310/2023 and connected matters, challenging the Circular dated 01.02.2023 and the Final Selection List. Vide order dated 22.09.2023, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, holding that the impugned Circular did not alter the eligibility conditions or merit-based selection criteria but only modified the manner of extending the benefit under Article 371J. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions.

The Tribunal, after examining the provisions of Article 371J of the Constitution, the Presidential/Governor’s Order, the Rules framed thereunder and the successive Government Circulars governing recruitment to local and non-local cadres, held that the Circular dated 01.02.2023 did not alter the eligibility criteria or the basis of selection. The eligibility conditions remained the same for all candidates and selection continued to be based on comparative merit in the competitive examination.

The Tribunal further held that the change brought about by the Circular dated 01.02.2023 was only with regard to the manner in which candidates belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region were to be considered for the benefit under Article 371J. A meritorious candidate from the Hyderabad-Karnataka region was entitled to be considered for the residuary/non-local cadre on the basis of merit. The option exercised by a local candidate to seek appointment in the local cadre merely created a possibility of a vacancy becoming available to another candidate and did not confer an accrued right upon the candidate. Therefore, alteration of the manner of consideration could not be treated as a change in the rules of the game midway through the recruitment process.

The Tribunal also rejected the contention that the option contemplated under the earlier Circular was an immutable condition of recruitment. It held that the relevant provision concerning such option related to persons already in service and could not be relied upon to contend that the Government was prohibited from modifying the manner of recruitment.

The Tribunal consequently found that the Circular dated 01.02.2023 was not illegal, and that the Revised Provisional Selection List and Final Selection List prepared pursuant thereto did not warrant interference. It also noted that this Court had considered a similar issue in the case of SRI NAVEEN KUMAR H.N. AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, W.P. No.4979/2023, and had taken a similar view. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected all the applications.

The Tribunal held that the Circular dated 01.02.2023 did not alter the eligibility or qualification prescribed for the recruitment and, therefore, the principle against changing the ‘rules of the game’ would not ordinarily apply. However, on examining the scheme under the 2013 Order and Rules, it held that the Regional Local Cadre, State Level Local Cadre and Residual Parent Cadre are distinct cadres, and that recruitment to the local cadres has to be governed by merit, reservation roster and the preference exercised by the candidates.

The Tribunal found that the Circular dated 01.02.2023, by directing that local candidates claiming local cadre reservation be considered for the Residual Parent Cadre first, had the effect of allocating more meritorious local candidates to the Residual Parent Cadre and comparatively less meritorious candidates to the local cadre. This deprived the more meritorious candidates of the local cadre reservation benefit which they had claimed and were entitled to on the basis of merit. The Tribunal held that such an allocation principle was contrary to the 2013 Order and Rules and was legally untenable.

The Tribunal accordingly held the Circular dated 01.02.2023 to be perverse and set it aside. It directed that allocation to the local cadres be made first, having regard to merit, reservation roster and the preference exercised by the candidates, and that the remaining candidates thereafter be considered for the Residual Parent Cadre in order of merit. The applications were accordingly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Government circular dated 01.02.2023 altered the recruitment procedure mid-process and it was contrary to the principle of merit and the constitutional scheme of local cadre reservation under Article 371J of the Constitution.

The Tribunal held that allocation of meritorious local candidates to the Residual Parent Cadre deprived them of Local Cadre reservation, while less meritorious candidates were allocated to Local Cadre posts. This inversion of merit prejudiced both local and non-local candidates, including the applicant.

The Tribunal further held that Article 371J does not envisage filling Residual Cadre Posts with local candidates at the cost of merit. The circular dated 01.02.2023 was held to distort the constitutional intent by conferring unintended benefits on less meritorious candidates. It further held that by allocating higher-merit local candidates to residual cadre posts and lower-merit candidates to local cadre posts, the selection process became perverse and inconsistent with the principle that merit must prevail in recruitment.

The Tribunal also held that non-local candidates were prejudiced because residual cadre posts, which should have been available to them on merit, were instead allocated to local candidates who had already claimed local cadre reservation. The Tribunal emphasized that the procedure prescribed in the circular dated 06.06.2020 was consistent with Article 371J. It provided a rational framework for candidates to exercise options for local cadre and residual cadre posts without depriving them of their rightful reservation status.

Since the provisional select list was prepared on the basis of the invalid circular dated 01.02.2023, the Tribunal set it aside and directed preparation of a revised list in accordance with the Circular dated 06.06.2020.

The Tribunal examined the constitutional framework under Article 371J of the Constitution of India, the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, and the subsequent Government Orders and circulars governing recruitment to local and non-local cadres. It observed that Article 371J was intended to provide equitable opportunities in public employment to persons belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region. The Tribunal noted that the Government had issued successive clarifications concerning the manner in which candidates were to be considered for appointment under the local and non-local cadres, with the objective of giving effect to the special provisions applicable to the region.

The Tribunal held that the Circular dated 01.02.2023 did not alter the essential conditions of recruitment after commencement of the selection process. It observed that the eligibility criteria for applying to the posts and the selection criterion based on comparative merit, determined by the marks secured in the competitive examination, had remained unchanged throughout the process. The Tribunal further held that the change introduced by the impugned Circular related only to the manner in which candidates were to be considered for extending the benefits under Article 371J. It further held that candidates belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region were entitled to compete for posts under the non-local cadre on merit, and that the possibility of a vacancy becoming available to another candidate on account of the exercise of an option could not be treated as a vested right or as a change in the rules of recruitment midway. Accordingly, it rejected the applications.

Constitutional and Legal Framework: Sri. Reuben Jacob learned AAG along with Sri. Raghavendra S.H., learned AGA appearing for the State submits that Article 371-J was inserted by the Constitution (98th Amendment) Act, 2012, and brought into effect on 01.01.2013. Exercising powers under this provision, the President issued the Hyderabad-Karnataka (Special Responsibility of Governor) Order, 2013, which laid the foundation for special reservation in public employment for the Hyderabad-Karnataka region. Subsequently, the Governor of Karnataka issued the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, which was later amended to empower the State Government to frame rules and issue clarifications thereunder.

Creation of Local Cadres: It is submitted that the aforementioned Rules of 2013, notified on 29.01.2014, organized local cadres for the seven districts of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, viz, Bidar, Gulbarga, Raichur, Koppal, Yadgir, Ballari, and Vijaynagara. These rules reserved 75% of Group-A junior scale and Group-B posts, 80% of Group-C posts, and 85% of Group-D posts for local candidates. Importantly, local cadres were declared separate units for recruitment, seniority, promotion, and transfer, while the remaining posts formed the Residual Parent Cadre (RP cadre).

Implementation through Circulars: It is submitted that over the time, several circulars were issued to regulate recruitment under this framework, including those dated 22.01.2015, 16.11.2016, 23.05.2019, 06.06.2020, 15.06.2022, and finally 01.02.2023. The present petitions primarily challenge the application of the 01.02.2023 circular to recruitment processes that had commenced earlier, alleging that it amounted to changing the rules of the game mid-way.

State’s Position on Recruitment Process: It is submitted that the eligibility criteria and merit determination remained consistent throughout. The process was fair, transparent, and uniformly applied, with no violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the petitioners were displaced only by higher-merited candidates, not by less qualified ones. Thus, the principle of merit which is the cornerstone of recruitment was preserved.

Nature of Petitioners’ Grievance: It is submitted that the grievance essentially arises from competing claims of low-merited candidates in Residual Parent cadre and Local Cadres. It is submitted that the petitioners argue that the higher-merited candidates should be shifted to Hyderabad Karnataka Cadre (Local Cadre) to secure their own selection in Residual Parent Cadre. However, since merit is paramount, displacement by more qualified candidates does not amount to infringement of rights. The dispute is therefore technical, based on timelines of circulars, rather than substantive violation of constitutional guarantees.

Judicial Precedents Supporting Merit Principle: The learned AAG has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of RADHEY SHYAM SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA [(1997) 1 SCC 60], wherein it was held that merit is the paramount consideration in recruitment. In the case of SENTIL KUMARAN BOSE vs N VAITHI (2026) ADD SCC CITATION, the Court emphasized the importance of a level playing field to ensure that more meritorious candidates are available for selection. The decisions of Supreme Court in the cases RACHIT SINHA vs UNION OF INDIA [(2018) 16 SCC 655], SADHANA SINGH DANGI vs PINKI ASATI [(2022) 12 SCC 401], and DEEPENDRA YADAV vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 724] reaffirmed that candidates from reserved categories may claim unreserved seats if their merit entitles them. The learned AAG submits that the cases cited by petitioners are distinguishable, as they involved changes that affected merit determination, which is not the case here.

No Violation of Rights: It is submitted that it is not the case of the petitioners that they were displaced by less merited candidates. Rather, each of them was displaced by higher-merited candidates eligible for both cadres. Since merit has not been compromised, no legal right of the petitioners has been infringed. The issue is therefore one of competing claims between two sets of low-merited candidates, dependent on where higher-merited candidates are placed.

The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the candidates who have applied to various posts submit that the Tribunal has failed to consider the constitutional scheme under Article 371J of the Constitution of India, the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, and the Special Rules of 2020 governing the recruitment for the Government posts.

It is submitted that recruitment was governed by the Governor’s Order, the Special Rules of 2020 and the Circular dated 06.06.2020, which prescribed the procedure for recruitment by maintaining the distinction between the two cadres and providing candidates from the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region an option to be considered for posts in the Residual Parent Cadre, subject to the prescribed conditions. After the candidates had appeared for the competitive examination and exercised their options, the provisional select list was published.

It is submitted that the subsequent Circular dated 15.06.2022 expressly provided that the ongoing recruitment process would continue under the existing instructions. However, by the impugned Circular dated 01.02.2023, the State Government sought to withdraw the protection afforded to the ongoing selection process and introduce a different method of allocation of candidates between the two cadres, even though the selection had substantially progressed. The impugned Circular thereby altered the methodology of recruitment after the candidates had participated in the process and exercised their options in accordance with the prevailing rules and instructions.

It is further submitted that Article 371J contemplates the reservation of a proportion of posts in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region, having regard to equitable opportunities for the people of the region and the requirements of the State as a whole. The Governor’s Order and the Rules framed thereunder had already determined the respective cadres, the proportion of vacancies and the applicable roster. The State Government could issue clarifications/instructions only to supplement and implement the Governor’s Order and could not, under the guise of implementing Article 371J, alter or supplant its provisions. In the absence of any authority under the Governor’s Order or the Rules, the impugned Circular was without jurisdiction and impermissible in law.

It is further submitted that the impugned Circular was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it effectively disregarded the options exercised by the candidates and the allocation contemplated under the existing recruitment framework. By requiring candidates from the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region to be considered for Residual Parent Cadre vacancies in the first instance, based on comparative merit, irrespective of their options, the Circular deprived eligible candidates of the benefit of the cadre for which they had opted and to which they were entitled under the prevailing instructions. It also disturbed the prescribed proportion of reservation and created the possibility of candidates from the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region being allocated against vacancies in the Residual Parent Cadre at the expense of candidates who had participated in the selection on the basis of the existing framework.

It is urged that local-cadre reservation under Article 371J is distinct from caste-based reservation. A candidate’s entitlement to the benefits of local-cadre reservation depends upon allocation to the concerned cadre and cannot be equated with the manner in which candidates belonging to reserved categories are considered against general merit vacancies. The allocation mechanism introduced by the impugned Circular, therefore, could not be justified by importing principles applicable to caste-based reservation. Such a mechanism would also disturb the separate cadre structure and the corresponding seniority arrangements contemplated under the Governor’s Order and the Rules.

It is also submitted that the Circular dated 01.02.2023 was issued in response to representations from certain candidates and political representatives, without any legally sustainable justification for altering the ongoing selection process. The impugned action was, therefore, an arbitrary exercise of power and could not be sustained merely on the ground that it sought to provide additional opportunities to candidates from the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region.

Having heard both the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the Circular dated 01.02.2023 brought about a material alteration in the procedure governing recruitment by changing the order of consideration and allocation of candidates between the Local Cadre and the Residual Parent Cadre, notwithstanding that the recruitment processes had commenced under the earlier framework, and whether such alteration was permissible under the applicable constitutional Orders, Recruitment Rules and original recruitment notifications?

The dispute cannot be resolved merely by examining whether the impugned Circular dated 01.02.2023 altered the eligibility conditions, examination pattern or marks prescribed for selection. The legality of the impugned action must be examined with reference to the entire recruitment framework, including the constitutional mandate under Article 371J, the Presidential and Governor’s Orders issued in pursuance thereof, the applicable statutory Rules, the recruitment notifications and the administrative instructions governing the selection process. Article 371J of the Constitution of India would read as under:

The State undoubtedly possesses the authority to formulate policies in matters of public administration and recruitment. Such authority, however, is neither absolute nor unfettered, and its exercise must conform to the Constitution, the applicable statutory rules and the principles of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While the executive may regulate administrative matters within its domain, such power cannot be exercised in a manner that overrides a binding legal framework or prejudicially alters the governing conditions of recruitment without lawful authority.

Article 371J was inserted into the Constitution by the Constitution (Ninety-eighth Amendment) Act, 2012, with the object of providing special provisions for the Kalyana-Karnataka Region, formerly known as the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region. The constitutional scheme envisages, inter alia, equitable opportunities in public employment and the organisation of local cadres for the benefit of the region. In furtherance of this constitutional mandate, the President issued the State of Karnataka (Special Responsibility of Governor for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, dated 24.10.2013, followed by the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, promulgated by the Governor on 06.11.2013. The State thereafter framed the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) (Organisation of Local Cadres, Allotment and Transfer of Persons) Rules, 2013, dated 29.01.2014.

The aforesaid constitutional and legal framework provides the foundation for the organisation of the Local Cadre and the Residual Parent Cadre and the implementation of the reservation contemplated under Article 371J of the Constitution. The distinction between these cadres is not merely administrative or procedural; it forms part of the mechanism through which the constitutional objective of providing equitable opportunities to eligible candidates is sought to be achieved. Consequently, any executive measure governing recruitment and cadre allocation must be consistent with the governing Orders and Rules and must advance, rather than undermine, the object for which the constitutional provision was introduced.

In the absence of a prescribed procedure governing every aspect of the application of reservation in direct recruitment, the State issued successive circulars regulating the consideration of candidates against the Local Cadre and the Residual Parent Cadre. The Circular dated 06.06.2020 prescribed a procedure under which a common recruitment notification could cover both cadres, with eligible candidates belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region exercising an option as to the cadre against which they sought consideration. The subsequent Circular dated 15.06.2022 withdrew the earlier procedure but expressly protected recruitment processes that had already commenced under the Circular dated 06.06.2020. The impugned Circular dated 01.02.2023 issued thereafter, introduced a revised sequence of consideration for pending recruitments.

The power to issue executive instructions for regulating administrative procedures cannot be equated with an unrestricted power to modify the substantive framework governing recruitment. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of SANT RAM SHARMA vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN [AIR 1967 SC 1910], executive instructions may supplement statutory rules where the rules are silent, but cannot supersede them. Accordingly, the State’s authority to regulate the implementation of Article 371J must be exercised within the limits prescribed by the constitutional framework. An executive circular cannot, merely by prescribing a different administrative procedure, override the governing legal framework or introduce a change that is otherwise impermissible in law.

Thus, the State’s policy-making power, though broad, remains subject to these legal constraints and the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A policy decision cannot be sustained solely on the ground that it falls within the executive domain; it must also conform to the governing law and operate in a manner consistent with the principles of equality, fairness and non-arbitrariness.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK AND OTHERS vs RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS [(2025) 2 SCC 1] authoritatively examined the principle that the rules governing recruitment cannot ordinarily be altered midway through the selection process. The Supreme Court has held that the expression “rules of the game” encompasses both the eligibility conditions governing entry into the selection process and the rules governing the method and manner of selection. It further held that the recruitment process commences with the issuance of the advertisement and ends with the filling up of the vacancies. It also held that eligibility criteria notified at the commencement of recruitment cannot be altered midway unless the existing Rules or the advertisement, consistent with those Rules, permit such alteration. Even where a change is permissible, it must satisfy the constitutional requirement of non-arbitrariness under Article 14. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:

The principle emerging from the said decision is not that every procedural change during the recruitment is invariably prohibited. Rather, the legality of the change depends upon the nature of the procedure altered, the authority under which the change is made, the terms of the governing Rules and notification, and whether the change satisfies the requirements of fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness.

In the case of UNION OF INDIA vs ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL [(2013) 16 SCC 147], the Supreme Court has held that administrative instructions may supplement statutory provisions but cannot supplant them. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

The learned Single of the High Court of Kerala in the case of HANA FATIMA AHINUS vs STATE OF KERALA [2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4911], held that the rules governing a selection process cannot be altered after the process has commenced, particularly after the examination has been conducted, to the prejudice of candidates. The Court held that even where the authority possesses the power to amend the governing prospectus, such power must be exercised lawfully and fairly, and cannot be used to introduce changes at a belated stage that arbitrarily affect the selection process which and held that ‘Rules of the game cannot be changed midway, once the game has begun’. The said decision has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in W.A.1702/2025. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

The relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Division Bench of High Copurt of Kerala in W.A.No.1702/2025 is extracted hereunder:

Applying this principle, it is necessary to distinguish between a change that merely regulates the administrative implementation of an existing criterion and a change that alters the operative basis on which candidates are considered for the notified vacancies. The former may be permissible where the governing framework leaves room for administrative supplementation. The latter cannot be justified merely by describing it as procedure, particularly where it changes the order of consideration, affects cadre allocation and materially alters the competitive position of candidates.

The Circular dated 06.06.2020 established a procedure under which the cadre options exercised by eligible candidates were to be given effect throughout the recruitment process. The Circular dated 15.06.2022, while withdrawing the earlier circular as a general measure, expressly protected specified ongoing recruitments by directing that they be completed in accordance with the 2020 procedure. The Circular dated 01.02.2023 subsequently withdrew that protection and imposed a different order of consideration, requiring the Residual Parent Cadre selection list to be prepared first, without regard to the cadre options exercised by local candidates, followed by preparation of the Local Cadre list. The change thus went to the very basis on which candidates were to be considered against vacancies in the two cadres, and was not merely a rearrangement of administrative steps.

The legal infirmity lies in the State having altered the operative procedure after candidates had entered the recruitment process and exercised their options under the procedure then in force. The order of consideration and the manner in which vacancies are allocated directly bear upon the zone of consideration and the relative prospects of candidates. A change affecting these matters cannot be treated as inconsequential merely because the eligibility conditions and marks-based assessment remain unaltered.

Consequently, we are of the opinion that the Circular dated 01.02.2023 materially altered the procedure governing the recruitment processes to which it applied. In the absence of authority under the governing Rules or the recruitment notification to introduce such a change midstream, the alteration is impermissible in law. An executive circular cannot, by displacing the procedure under which an ongoing recruitment was initiated, alter the basis of consideration to the prejudice of candidates who participated in that process.

The State has contended that the impugned Circular dated 01.02.2023 did not deprive any candidate of a vested right to appointment and that the candidates who were displaced from the selection lists were displaced only because candidates securing higher marks were considered against vacancies in the Residual Parent Cadre. This contention, however, does not adequately address the effect of the Circular on the allocation of vacancies between the Local Cadre and the Residual Parent Cadre and the consequential impact on the consideration of competing candidates.

The issue is whether the order of consideration prescribed by the impugned Circular altered the manner in which candidates were allocated to the two cadres and, in doing so, affected their relative chances of selection. Where recruitment is undertaken against vacancies earmarked for distinct cadres, the procedure governing the allocation of those vacancies assumes significance, as it determines the cadre against which a candidate is considered and the candidates with whom such candidate competes.

Under the earlier procedure, the cadre options exercised by eligible candidates were to be taken into account in the course of recruitment. The impugned Circular, however, required the selection list for the Residual Parent Cadre to be prepared first, without taking into consideration the options exercised by local candidates, and the selection list for the Local Cadre to be prepared thereafter. This change is capable of affecting the distribution of candidates between the two cadres and, consequently, the position of candidates in the respective selection lists. The effect of the Circular, therefore, extended beyond the mere rearrangement of the sequence in which the lists were prepared; it altered the basis on which candidates were considered against the vacancies in the respective cadres.

It is well settled that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. However, the absence of such a right does not confer a liberty on the recruiting authority to alter the procedure governing cadre allocation in a manner inconsistent with the applicable Rules.

The Supreme Court in the case of TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK (supra), while explaining the principles laid down in K. MANJUSREE vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [(2008) 3 SCC 512], and STATE OF HARYANA vs SUBASH CHANDER MARWAHA [(1974) 3 SCC 220], recognised the distinction between the rules governing selection and the absence of an indefeasible right to appointment. The principle that inclusion in a select list does not guarantee appointment cannot be invoked to justify a departure from the procedure governing the recruitment itself. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Circular dated 01.02.2023 materially affected the cadre-allocation process by altering the order in which candidates were considered against vacancies in the Residual Parent Cadre and the Local Cadre, thereby affecting their relative position and prospects of selection. The comparative merit of candidates must operate within the framework governing cadre allocation and cannot, by itself, validate a departure from that framework.

The impugned Circular must also withstand scrutiny under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters relating to public employment, while Article 14 requires State action to be fair, non-arbitrary and founded upon a legally sustainable basis.

The constitutional objection does not rest merely on the fact that the Government changed its policy. The State is not permanently bound to retain every administrative procedure it adopts, and public policy may legitimately evolve. The difficulty arises when a change in procedure is applied to the recruitment in force, notwithstanding that the candidates have submitted their applications and participated in the process under a previously prescribed framework, and where the change materially affects their consideration for the notified vacancies. In such circumstances, the State must establish that the alteration was authorised by the governing framework, was introduced for a legitimate purpose, bears a rational nexus to that purpose and operates consistently with the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity. Uniform application of a circular to all pending recruitments does not, by itself, establish compliance with these requirements.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is relevant in this context. Participation in a recruitment process does not create an immutable right to the continuation of every administrative arrangement or guarantee appointment under the original notification. Nevertheless, where a recruitment authority has invited applications under a specified framework and candidates have acted upon that framework, their expectation that the selection will be conducted in accordance with the applicable Rules and notified terms is a relevant consideration in assessing the fairness of State action.

Applying that standard, the impugned Circular dated 01.02.2023 required the authorities to reconsider candidates under a different sequence of cadre allocation, notwithstanding that the recruitment processes had commenced under the earlier procedure. The consequence was not merely administrative. As demonstrated by the revised selection lists, candidates who had previously found place in the Residual Parent Cadre were displaced, after candidates who had originally opted for the Local Cadre were considered against the Residual Parent Cadre.

The constitutional infirmity, therefore, lies in the application of a materially altered procedure without a demonstrated legal basis for doing so in the pending recruitments. Where the governing framework does not authorise such a change, its application undermines the requirement that public recruitment be conducted according to known, lawful and consistently applied criteria.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that by introducing a materially altered procedure for cadre allocation to the ongoing recruitment processes, the impugned Circular dated 01.02.2023 resulted in the displacement of candidates who had earlier found place in the Residual Parent Cadre selection lists. The impugned Circular, to this extent, fails to satisfy the constitutional mandate of fairness and non-arbitrariness embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

On consideration of the constitutional framework under Article 371J, the applicable Orders and Rules, the terms of the recruitment notifications and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we have arrived at the following conclusions:

In view of the foregoing, W.P.Nos 1464/2024, 52772/2019, 23162/2023, 23450/2023, 27336/2023, 27517/2023, 28614/2023, 29056/2023, 1633/2024, 1900/2024, 2034/2024, 7927/2024, 9473/2024, 24251/2024, 24410/2024 and W.A.No. 1218/2023 are allowed and W.P.Nos.16343/2024 and 863/2024 are dismissed. The orders of the Tribunal setting aside the Circular dated 01.02.2023 in the recruitment processes under consideration do not call for interference whereas, the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.956/2023, 2688-89/2023, 10432/2023, however, cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside.

The revised provisional and final selection lists prepared by applying the Circular dated 01.02.2023 shall be reconsidered, to the extent that they are affected by the alteration in the cadre-allocation procedure. The concerned recruiting authorities shall prepare revised selection lists in accordance with the constitutional Orders, applicable Rules, original recruitment notifications and the procedure governing the respective recruitment processes at their commencement. Such exercise shall give due effect to the applicable cadre-wise vacancies, reservation roster, merit and the cadre options exercised by candidates in accordance with the governing procedure. The exercise shall be confined to reconsideration of cadre allocation and the consequential selection lists. The eligibility of candidates and the marks secured by them shall not be reopened.

Pending interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.