Supreme Court: Selection Authorities Cannot Add Unprescribed Eligibility Criteria

Home / Top Stories / Supreme Court Judgments Selection Authority Cannot Add Eligibility Criteria Not Prescribed by Rules: Supreme Court X Supreme Court rules against arbitrary cut-offs in recruitment despite vacant posts. The Supreme Court held that selection authorities cannot add eligibility thresholds beyond recruitment rules, especially where arbitrary cut-offs leave available vacancies unfilled. The Supreme Court has held that where a statute or rule provides a specific and exhaustive mechanism for shortlisting candidates, the selection authority cannot introduce additional eligibility thresholds, such as qualifying or cut-off marks, which are not prescribed by the rules. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih held that prescribing cut-off marks, particularly when it results in the exclusion of candidates despite the availability of vacancies, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power and vitiates the selection process . Cut-off marks not prescribed by the recruitment rules Court said the imposition of an additional eligibility threshold of cut-off marks, not provided for in the rules, would be arbitrary and contrary to the prescribed procedure. The Bench was dealing with a plea filed by Arvind Kumar and others, who had challenged the recruitment process for instructors in Uttar Pradesh. The appellants had participated in the selection process without objecting to the recruitment rules. However, Court held that such participation would not prevent a challenge where arbitrariness or illegality in the selection process is writ large. The appellants were aggrieved by the dilution of the CITS (Craft Instructor Training Scheme) certificate requirement, as non-CITS candidates were allowed to participate in the recruitment process initiated through advertisements issued in 2014 and 2015 by the Uttar Pradesh government . They claimed that the state government had erroneously made the CITS certificate a desirable qualification, contrary to the executive directions issued by the Central Government on July 24, 1996, which required the CITS certificate to be a mandatory essential qualification. The Allahabad High Court, by its common judgment and order dated January 4, 2023, dismissed their petitions. The Supreme Court examined whether the 2014 Rules issued by the Uttar Pradesh government were bad for contravention of the Central Government's executive directions of July 24, 1996. The Bench noted that the 2014 Rules have since been superseded by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Training Institute (Instructor and Foreman Instructor) Service Rules, 2021, under which the National Craft Instructor Certificate has been made an essential qualification. Can a candidate challenge the selection process after participating in it? Ordinarily, no. Court noted that a candidate who participates in a selection process without objection cannot ordinarily challenge the process subsequently. The state had argued that the appellants had applied under the advertisements with full awareness that acquisition of a CITS certificate was only a desirable qualification and were therefore estopped from challenging the process. The Supreme Court found this objection to be well founded, fair and tenable. However, the Bench clarified that this principle would not apply where illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process is writ large. "However, though a candidate for a post cannot ordinarily challenge the process of selection where he has participated without objection, law is well-settled that he can do so in a situation where arbitrariness/illegality in the selection process is writ large," the Bench said. Court added that by agreeing to participate in the selection process, a candidate cannot be expected to anticipate that an illegality in the process would later be used to rule out his candidature. Nor can the candidate be said to have accepted the illegality merely by participating in the process. "If indeed illegality in the