SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

                 [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1344 : 2024 INSC 763

                    Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh
                                  v.
                    The State of Bihar and Others
                      (Civil Appeal No. 11030 of 2024)
                              04 October 2024
           [Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Despite the preparation of the Final Select List which signals the
       conclusion of the appointment process, the State Government
       sought to scrap the entire process and undertake a fresh
       appointment process under the New Rules. Whether this amounted
       to effectively changing the rules of the game after the game was
       played which is impermissible and deprives the candidates of their
       legitimate right of consideration under the previous Rules.

                                 Headnotes†
       Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering
       (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015 – Bihar Water Resources
       Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment
       (Amendment) Rules 2017 – Recruitment – Appointment
       process – Bihar Technical Service Commission invited
       applications for vacancies to the post of Junior Engineer
       across various state departments vide Advertisement dated
       08.03.2019 – The applications of the private respondents
       herein were found ineligible by the BTSC on the ground that
       their institutions were not approved by the All-India Council
       of Technical Education (AICTE) – Writ petitions were filed –
       After various orders of the High Court, a Final Select List
       was prepared on 19.12.2022, put under sealed cover and
       permission of the Court was sought by filing an interlocutory
       application – However, application was adjourned after Court
       was informed that the State Government was contemplating
       a review of the entire process – Later on 25.01.2023, decision
       was taken by the State Government inter alia to cancel the
       entire appointment process under the Advertisement and to
       initiate approval for the amended Rules:


* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                             1345

                     Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v.
                      The State of Bihar and Others

     Held: In the instant case, despite the preparation of the Final Select
     List which signals the conclusion of the appointment process,
     the State Government seeks to scrap the entire process and
     undertake a fresh appointment process under the New Rules – In
     the considered opinion of this Court, this amounts to effectively
     changing the rules of the game after the game was played which
     is impermissible and deprives the candidates of their legitimate
     right of consideration under the previous Rules – The High Court
     in the impugned order has abruptly and without assigning reasons
     and without adjudicating any issues involved in the writ petitions,
     disposed of the same, recording the statement made by the
     counsel for the State, and permitted the State to amend Rules in
     question – Since, the entire recruitment process was concluded
     as per the extant Rules till the selection list was declared on
     02.04.2022, which has not been specifically set aside by the High
     Court, and since the AICTE has also continued its stand that its
     approval is not necessary for the private institutions, and since the
     order dated 19.04.2022 (in which the first Select List was partly
     set aside) has attained finality, the interest of justice would be met
     if the State/Commission is directed to prepare a fresh select list
     of meritorious candidates in respect of the Advertisement dated
     08.03.2019 – Hence, it is directed that a fresh selection list for
     the vacancies advertised in the Advertisement dated 08.03.2019
     be prepared of the meritorious candidates in compliance with the
     order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the High Court – The Fresh
     Select List shall also include those meritorious candidates who
     were otherwise eligible but were declared ineligible solely on
     account of the 2017 amendment to the Rules i.e., on account of
     their institute not being recognised by the AICTE, and all similarly
     placed successful candidates. [Paras 26, 27, 29]

                              Case Law Cited
     Bharathidasan University & Anr. v. AICTE & Ors. [2001] Supp.
     3 SCR 253 : (2001) 8 SCC 676; Punjab National Bank v. Anit
     Kumar Das [2020] 9 SCR 925 : (2021) 12 SCC 80; The Chairman
     SBI & Anr. v. M.J. James [2021] 7 SCR 373 : (2022) 2 SCC 301;
     K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [2008] 2 SCR
     1025 : (2008) 3 SCC 512 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil)
     Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015; Bihar Water Resources Department
1346                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment)
     Rules 2017; All-India Council of Technical Education Act 1987.

                            List of Keywords
     Service Law; Recruitment; Appointment; Changing the rules of the
     game after the game was played; Legitimate right of consideration;
     All-India Council of Technical Education; Bihar Technical Service
     Commission.

                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11030 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2023 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 3411 of 2022
     With
     Civil Appeal Nos. 11031, 11032, 11033 and 11034 of 2024

                        Appearances for Parties
     Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, P. S. Patwalia, Ranjit
     Kumar, Rudreshwar Singh, Sr. Advs., Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh
     Kaushik, Barun Dey, Rony John, Vansh Kalra, Ms. Malvika Singh,
     Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Ms. Rebecca
     Mishra, Gopal Singh, Shivam Singh, Suyash Vyas, Smarhar Singh,
     Ms. Shweta Kumari, Manoj Kumar, Md. Asim, Pankaj Prakash, Prem
     Prakash, Ms. Vineeta Singh, Aditya Harsh, Ms. Deepali Nanda,
     Yadav Narender Singh, Anil Soni, Harish Pandey, Aditya Vaibhav
     Singh, Ms. Vanya Gupta, Neeraj Shekhar, Mrs. Kshama Sharma,
     Arvind Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1.   Leave Granted.
2.   The present batch of appeals arise out of judgement dated
     16.02.2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in
     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3411/2022 (‘CWJC’) along with
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                      1347

                     Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v.
                      The State of Bihar and Others

     other connected matters (the ‘Impugned Order’), whereby the Writ
     Petitioners who were the unsuccessful candidates in the Recruitment
     Process conducted pursuant to the Advertisement dated 08.03.2019
     for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), had challenged the vires of
     Rule 9(1)(ii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate
     Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2017,
     published vide notification dated 07.11.2017, prescribing technical
     qualification eligibility for selection/appointment to the technical
     post in the State of Bihar. The appellants before this Court are the
     successful candidates in the said Recruitment Process.
3.   The present matter begins with the issuance of Advertisement No.
     01/2019 dated 08.03.2019 by the Bihar Technical Service Commission
     (‘BTSC’) inviting applications for 6,379 vacancies to the post of Junior
     Engineer across various state departments (the ‘Advertisement’).
     The Advertisement specified that the educational qualification required
     for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) as under:
          “Educational Eligibility.
          a) Junior Engineer (Civil)
          i. Diploma-in-Civil Engineering conferred by the concerned
          Technical Educational Council/University recognised
          by All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi.
          ii. Diploma-in-Civil Engineering through non-distance mode
          conferred by the concerned Deemed University established
          under the UGC Act provided the Deemed University is
          duly approved by the University Grants Commission for
          the said Course.”
     It is pertinent to note that this requirement is drawn from and is
     identical to Rule 9(1)(iii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department
     Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015 (the
     ‘Rules’) as amended in 2017.
4.   The private Respondents in the present appeal were the Writ
     Petitioners before the High Court. They were all applicants who
     possessed a Diploma from Private Universities/Institutions established
     by statute and approved by the University Grants Commission.
     Their applications were found ineligible by the BTSC on the ground
     that their institutions were not approved by the All-India Council of
1348                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


     Technical Education (‘AICTE’). Aggrieved, they approached the High
     Court seeking the quashing of Rule 9(1)(iii) of the Rules as being
     inconsistent with other statutory provisions and judgement of the Apex
     Court in Bharathidasan University & Anr. vs. AICTE & Ors. 2001
     (8) SCC 676 wherein, on an interpretation of the provisions of the
     All-India Council of Technical Education Act 1987, it was held that
     Universities are excluded from the purview of technical institutions
     and are thus not required to obtain approvals from the AICTE before
     introducing technical courses/programs.
5.   The Writ Petitioners relied on public notice dated 09.02.2022 issued
     by the AICTE, to the VCs of all Central/State and Private Universities
     about AICTE approval for 2022-23, stating as follows:
          “Dear Sir/Madam,
          lt is intimated that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
          case of Bharathidasan University & Another Vs AICTE &
          Others has interpreted the provisions of the AICTE Act
          and has held that university do not require prior approval
          of AICTE to commence a new department of course and
          programmes in technical education. Universities have
          obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms
          laid down by the AICTE. For the purpose of ensuring
          coordinated and integrated development of technical
          education and maintenance of standards, AICTE may
          cause an inspection of the university, which has to be as
          per the provisions under relevant rules/regulations of the
          AICTE. Further, all affiliated institutions running technical
          education programmes requires prior approval of AICTE.
          However, it has been observed that some of the Central
          / State / Private Universities are taking partial approval of
          AICTE for some selected Technical Courses / Programmes,
          which is creating confusion among the stakeholders.
          Therefore, AICTE decided that no partial approval of
          technical courses will be given to Universities in order to
          avoid confusion among stakeholders.
          Accordingly, all universities are hereby informed that
          either they take full approval of all technical courses,
          or they can continue without approval of AICTE.”
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         1349

                     Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v.
                      The State of Bihar and Others

6.   It is relevant to note that the stand of the Writ Petitioners was
     reinforced by the AICTE before the High Court, as made explicit
     by their Counter Affidavit dated 12.05.2022, which read as under:
          “8. That so far the statements made in paragraph no. 15
          of the writ petition concern it is submitted that AICTE vide
          its public notification for approval process 2021-22 had
          categorically clarified that the central/state public private
          universities are not required to take approval of the AICTE
          for technical programs except ODL and online courses.
          This position has also been confirmed in the public notice
          issued for approval process 2022-23…………..”
7.   At this stage, it is apposite to observe that prior to the filing of
     CWJC No. 3411/2022, the High Court was already hearing several
     analogous writs challenging different provisions of the Rules as
     applicable to the selection process under the Advertisement.
     Accordingly, vide order dated 02.05.2019 passed in CWJC
     No. 9887/2019, the BTSC was permitted to continue the selection
     process, with the results to be kept in a sealed cover, pending the
     outcome of the proceedings. This order was later modified vide order
     dated 06.12.2019 in CWJC No. 21651/2018 whereby the High Court
     allowed the selection process to be completed but directed that all
     orders of appointments must state that appointments are subject to the
     outcome of the writ petitions and therefore, the selected candidates
     cannot claim any equity.
8.   Accordingly, on 02.04.2022, the BTSC published its selection list
     for the posts advertised under the Advertisement (‘Select List’) and
     the selected candidates were also allotted to specific departments.
     In compliance with the aforenoted interim orders, the Select List
     reproduced the directions given by the Court in order dated 06.12.2019
     and explicitly stated that the Select List shall be affected in light of
     the final order in the pending proceedings.
9.   Thereafter, in a separate analogous writ proceeding being CWJC
     No. 7312/2021, vide order dated 19.04.2022, Rule 4(A) of the Rules
     which granted 40% institutional reservation to diploma holders
     from State-run Polytechnic Institutes was found to be arbitrary
     and unreasonable. Consequently, Select list prepared in terms of
     Rule 4(A) was set aside and the BTSC was directed to prepare a
     fresh select list granting 40% institutional reservation to diploma
1350                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


     holders from any polytechnic institute, recognized by the AICTE and
     affiliated with the State Board of Technical Institutions, Bihar and
     located within the State.
10. Following this, the BTSC proceeded to finalise the merit list
    under the Advertisement but were directed by the High Court
    vide order 01.12.2022 in CWJC No. 7761/2022 to withhold the
    declaration of results until leave is granted by the Court. A list was
    prepared on 19.12.2022, put under sealed cover and permission
    of the Court was sought by filing an interlocutory application in
    CWJC No. 7761/2022 (the ‘Final Select List’). The hearing of the
    application was adjourned after the Advocate General informed
    the Court that the State Government was contemplating a review
    of the entire process.
11. On 25.01.2023, the Govt. of Bihar convened a high-level meeting of
    Secretaries from different works departments to consider the legal
    issues emerging from the numerous pending litigations against
    the Rules and the Advertisement and the consequent 4-year delay
    in appointments. A decision was taken inter alia to cancel the
    appointment process under the Advertisement and to initiate approval
    for the amended Rules.
12. Once the decision dated 25.01.2023 was brought on record before
    the High Court, the State Govt. was permitted to implement its
    decisions dated 25.01.2023 and the Court concluded that nothing
    remained in the matter. Accordingly, CWJC No. 3411/2022 and all
    other analogous writs were disposed of in the following manner:
          “In the instant writ petitions, petitioners have prayed for
          the following relief/reliefs:
               i.    For quashing of Rule 9(1)(ii) of Rules “Bihar Water
                     Resources Department Subordinate Engineering
                     (Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules,
                     2017 contained in Notification no. 3950 dated
                     07.11.2017 prescribing technical qualification
                     eligibility for selection/appointment to the
                     technical post in the State of Bihar, as being
                     inconsistent with other statutory provisions, in
                     contravention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
                     judgment and is violative of fundamental rights
                     guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                             1351

                       Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v.
                        The State of Bihar and Others

                ii.    For declaration of the aforesaid rules as being
                       ultra vires to the Constitution of India so far
                       amendment of Rule -9(1)(iii) is concerned.
                iii.   For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner
                       is found entitled to.
          2. Matter is relating to selection and appointment to the
          post of Junior Engineer. In this regard, advertisement
          was issued on 08.03.2019. From time to time, matter
          was taken up for hearing and during the course of the
          hearing we have noticed certain errors in the relevant
          Rules governing the post of Junior Engineer. Ultimately,
          State Government has taken a decision to cancel the
          process of recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer with
          reference to advertisement issued on 08.03.2019 and
          proposed to issue a fresh or amendment of Rules while
          rectifying certain errors which have crept in the existing
          Rules. To that effect, supplementary counter affidavit has
          been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 while enclosing
          decision dated 25.01.2023 vide Annexure – A to the
          supplementary counter affidavit. Perusal of the same,
          it is evident that certain errors which have crept in the
          Rules would be carried in amendment of relevant Rules
          etc. The proposed action of the State respondents reads
          as under:
                ‘4. After due deliberations on all aspects, it was
                resolved that:
                a.     In view of the legal wrangle crept in presently,
                       the Recruitment process emanating from the
                       Advertisement No.01/2019 notified by the Bihar
                       Technical Service Commission be cancelled.
                b.     The Department which earlier send its requisition
                       for appointment to the Commission shall
                       withdraw their respective requisition from the
                       Bihar Technical Service Commission and such
                       Department would send their such requisition
                       afresh only after framing of new Recruitment
                       Rules.
1352                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


               c.    Action be also initiated for cancellation of the
                     Junior Engineer Recruitments Rules which
                     are presently in vogue in various departments
                     and thereafter, the amended Junior Engineer
                     Recruitments Rules be framed.
               d.    Steps be taken as to the approval of the Council
                     of Ministers be accorded to the amended junior
                     Engineer Recruitment Rules for the appointment
                     of the Junior Engineer.’
          3. In the light of these new developments, the present
          petitions do not survive for consideration. Accordingly,
          State is permitted to carry out necessary amendment and
          proceed afresh to advertise for the post of Junior Engineer.
          4. From the date of last advertisement till date, almost four
          years have elapsed, therefore, such of those candidates
          who are likely to be over-aged with reference to ensuing
          advertisement, for such of those candidates (who are
          applicants to the advertisement dated 08.03.2019), State
          Government must make a provision in the proposed
          amendment insofar as giving age relaxation as a one
          time measure. The above exercise shall be completed
          within a period of four months from the date of receipt
          of this order.
          5. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
          6. At this stage, learned counsel for one of the contesting
          respondent submitted that liberty may be reserved to
          challenge the proposed amendment. Such liberty is not
          necessary for the reasons that as and when Rules or
          amended rules were issued afresh, it would be a fresh
          cause of action to the respective parties.”
13. Learned Senior Counsels for the Appellants, Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, Mr.
    Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Meenakshi Arora urged before this Court that
    at the outset, the Writ Petitioners, having knowingly participated in
    the selection process under the Advertisement were bound by the
    doctrine of acquiescence and therefore, could not have challenged the
    eligibility criteria post-facto. Reliance is placed on Punjab National
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                    1353

                     Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v.
                      The State of Bihar and Others

     Bank vs. Anit Kumar Das (2021) 12 SCC 80 and The Chairman
     SBI & Anr. vs. M.J. James (2022) 2 SCC 301.
14. The learned counsels for the Appellants also contended that the
    cancellation of the entire selection process after its completion
    and preparation of the Final Select List, is unjustified and amounts
    to changing the rules of the game after the declaration of results,
    which is impermissible. Reliance is placed on K. Manjusree vs.
    State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512. It is argued
    that the Appellants, who emerged successful after the due process
    of selection which was carried out as per the Advertisement, have
    a vested right to be appointed and are instead being made to suffer
    though no fault of their own.
15. They further contended that the decision taken by the State
    Government and approved by the High Court amounts to arbitrary
    action as it fails to specify the concern/anomaly with Rule 9(1)(iii)
    which necessitated the cancellation of the entire process.
16. Learned Counsel for the Private Respondents i.e., the Writ Petitioners
    before the High Court also contended that the cancellation of the
    entire selection process, at such a tardy stage would seriously impact
    their interests. They argue that as per the stand of the AICTE before
    the High Court, their applications were eligible and should thus be
    reconsidered along with the applications of the Appellants.
17. Learned Senior Counsel for the State, Mr. Patwalia vehemently
    contends that the State was well within its domain to scrap the
    selection process considering the numerous legal issues that
    cropped up concerning the previously applicable Rules. It is brought
    to the notice of this Court that in furtherance of its decisions, as
    approved by the Impugned Order, the Govt. of Bihar has repealed
    the existing Rules and notified the Bihar Subordinate Engineering
    (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) Cadre Rules, 2023 (the ‘New Rules’)
    vide Notification No. 1174 dated 07.03.2023. In compliance with the
    directions of the High Court, appropriate provisions for the grant of
    one-time age relaxations have also been made under Rule 8(2) of
    the New Rules. Further, the BTSC has cancelled the Advertisement
    vide notice dated 10.04.2023 and fresh requisitions have been
    sent by the Water Resources Department to the BTSC vide letter
    dated 21.03.2023 for selection against 2252 vacant posts for Junior
    Engineers in that department.
1354                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


18. Mr. Patwalia further contends that the completion of the selection
    process under the Advertisement, resulting in the Select List and in
    the Final Select List was consistently carried out with the rider that
    the appointments would be subject to the outcome of the pending
    litigation. He argues that while the Select List was partially set aside
    by the High Court vide order dated 19.04.2022, the Final Select
    List was neither considered by the High Court nor published, and
    therefore, no right to appointment vests with the Appellants, making
    any claim to equity untenable.
19. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that while issuing notice, this
    Court vide order dated 24.04.2023 directed the maintenance of
    status quo which has persisted till date. As per the most recent status
    report by the State, nearly 9,187 posts of Junior Engineers remain
    vacant, drastically affecting the day-to-day functioning of the State.
    As retirements are ongoing, the working strength is continuously
    decreasing and is currently at 11.7%. In recognition of the peculiar
    facts and circumstances of this case, Mr. Patwalia has fairly stated
    before this Court that the State will abide by any appropriate direction
    given by the Court.
20. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
    record.
21. As evidenced above, the present case has a chequered history.
    Before the Advertisement was released, an amendment was brought
    to the Rules in 2017, more particularly to Rule 9, which restricted the
    eligibility criteria only to those candidates who possessed a Diploma
    from an institute approved by the AICTE. This amendment was
    prima facie contrary to the decision of this Court in Bharathidasan
    University (supra) which is solidified by the stand of the AICTE
    before this Court and their public notice dated 19.02.2022. However,
    despite this infraction, the Advertisement contained the same
    restriction, arbitrarily disqualifying persons like the Writ Petitioners
    from the selection process.
22. Thereafter, the first Select List that was prepared was partly set aside
    vide order dated 19.04.2022 in CWJC No. 7312/2021 and the BTSC
    was directed to prepare a fresh Select List as under:
          “Accordingly, appointments made to extent in terms of
          Rule 4(A) of amending Rules, 2017 are set aside and the
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                       1355

                     Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v.
                      The State of Bihar and Others

          Bihar State Technical Selection Commission is directed to
          prepare afresh select/merit list granting 40% institutional
          reservation to all the diploma holders, who have obtained
          their diploma certificate from any polytechnic institutes
          recognized by AICTU and affiliated by State Board of
          Technical Institutions, Bihar, Patna within the State of
          Bihar.”
23. Consequently, the Select List prepared on 02.04.2022 was
    impliedly set aside and a Final Select List was prepared by the
    BTSC in compliance with order dated 19.04.2022 but the same
    was not released as ordered by the Patna High Court vide order
    dated 01.12.2022 in another analogous writ proceeding being
    CWJC No. 7761/2022 as under:
          “…Process of selection and appointment, in terms of
          advertisement dated 8.9.2019, is nearing completion.
          Under these circumstances, as prayed for, we grant two
          weeks’ time to file reply.
          In the meanwhile, process of selection may carry on,
          but the result shall not be declared without leave of
          the Court.”
24. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 19.04.2022 passed in
    CWJC No. 7312 of 2021 does not appear to have been challenged
    further and has attained finality. It is stated by the BTSC that the
    Final Select List was prepared and kept under sealed cover. While
    an application seeking release of the list was pending before the
    High Court, the Writ Petition was withdrawn.
25. During the present proceedings, vide order dated 10.09.2024, this
    Court sought information regarding the Final Select List from the
    State Government and the same was produced before this Court
    in sealed cover.
26. Presently, despite the preparation of the Final Select List which
    signals the conclusion of the appointment process, the State
    Government seeks to scrap the entire process and undertake a
    fresh appointment process under the New Rules. In the considered
    opinion of this Court, this amounts to effectively changing the rules
    of the game after the game was played which is impermissible and
1356                                                        [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     deprives the candidates of their legitimate right of consideration
     under the previous Rules.
27. The High Court in the impugned order has abruptly and without
    assigning reasons and without adjudicating any issues involved in
    the writ petitions, disposed of the same, recording the statement
    made by the learned counsel for the State, and permitted the State
    to amend Rules in question. Since, the entire recruitment process
    was concluded as per the extant Rules till the selection list was
    declared on 02.04.2022, which has not been specifically set aside
    by the High Court, and since the AICTE has also continued its stand
    that its approval is not necessary for the private institutions, and
    since the order dated 19.04.2022 passed in CWJC No. 7312/2021
    has attained finality, in our opinion, the interest of justice would be
    met if the State/Commission is directed to prepare a fresh select
    list of meritorious candidates in respect of the Advertisement dated
    08.03.2019, keeping in view the above facts and keeping in view
    that no appointments to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) have
    been made since last more than ten years. Hence, it is required to
    be directed that a fresh selection list for the vacancies advertised in
    the Advertisement dated 08.03.2019 be prepared of the meritorious
    candidates, considering the above observations and in compliance
    with the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the High Court in CWJC
    No. 7312/2021 as expedient as possible and preferably within three
    months of this order.
28. In this regard, the field is held by the three-judge bench decision of this
    Court in K. Manjusree (supra) wherein the Court, relying on previous
    decisions, explicitly held that introducing new requirements into the
    selection process after the entire selection process was completed
    amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game was
    played. Relevant portions of the judgement are reproduced as under:
           “27. But what could not have been done was the second
           change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks
           for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had
           never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
           earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade
           II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative
           Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in
           vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                             1357

                     Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v.
                      The State of Bihar and Others

          apply minimum marks only for written examination and
          not for the oral examination. We have referred to the
          proper interpretation of the earlier Resolutions dated
          24-7-2001 and 21-2-2002 and held that what was adopted on
          30-11-2004 was only minimum marks for written examination
          and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the
          requirement of minimum marks for interview, after
          the entire selection process (consisting of written
          examination and interview) was completed, would
          amount to changing the rules of the game after the
          game was played which is clearly impermissible. We
          are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It
          is sufficient to refer to three of them — P.K. Ramachandra
          Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S)
          214], Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3
          SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] and Durgacharan Misra
          v. State of Orissa [(1987) 4 SCC 646 : 1988 SCC (L&S)
          36 : (1987) 5 ATC 148]
          32. In Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve
          [(2001) 10 SCC 51 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 720] this Court
          observed that “the rules of the game, meaning thereby,
          that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the
          authorities concerned in the middle or after the process
          of selection has commenced”. In this case the position
          is much more serious. Here, not only the rules of the
          game were changed, but they were changed after the
          game had been played and the results of the game were
          being awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible.”
29. Therefore, in light of the aforenoted position, the State action of
    scrapping the entire selection process is not permissible. In view of
    the peculiar circumstances of this case, particularly the prolonged
    pendency leading to huge number of vacant posts that hinder the
    Government’s functioning, this Court finds it appropriate for the State/
    BTSC to proceed with the Fresh Select List submitted in compliance
    with the order dated 19.04.2022 in CWJC No. 7312/2021 which has
    attained finality, as also taking into consideration as far as possible,
    the interest of the candidates who were found successful. Hence,
    the Fresh Select List must be appropriately revised in the following
    manner:
1358                                                         [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


     (i)     The Fresh Select List be prepared in view of order dated
             19.04.2022 passed by the High Court in CWJC No. 7312/2021.
     (ii)    The Fresh Select List shall also include as far as possible those
             meritorious candidates who were otherwise eligible but were
             declared ineligible solely on account of the 2017 amendment to
             the Rules i.e., on account of their institute not being recognised
             by the AICTE, and all similarly placed successful candidates.
     (iii) The BTSC is directed to prepare the Revised Select List within
           3 months of this Order and the State Government is directed to
           act upon the Revised Select List submitted by the Commission
           within a period of 30 days thereafter.
30. Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed of with the aforenoted
    directions.

     Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan