Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Latest News
Back
Rules of the Game Cannot be Changed After the Game Has Started
The Supreme Court has distinguished between rules guiding qualification/eligibility and regulations governing changes in the selection process when interpreting the principle that "Rules of the Game Cannot be Changed After the Game Has Started." A modification in the selection procedure won't change the "rules of the game," according to the justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh's bench. Only when the basic qualification is sought to be amended after notice will the rule that "Rules of the Game Cannot be Changed After the Game Has Started" apply.
In other words, an applicant cannot be denied the opportunity to participate in the hiring process after the advertisement is published and they submit an application. The aforementioned rule will only be used in such circumstances; otherwise, the employer won't be able to hire a qualified applicant.
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal against the Allahabad High Court's ruling, arguing that the High Court also ordered that candidates who were not on the list submitted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission be considered for any openings that occurred from the chosen candidates, who had been approved by the hiring authority, declining the positions offered for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Single Cadre, Group (C).
The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Bench's decision to dismiss the Writ Petition brought by the private respondents because, if properly interpreted, Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "1978 Rules") would make it easier to take queue members' performances into account.
The bench observed that the un-selected candidates desire to push into service a portion of the 1978 Rules while adopting the 2015 Rules, citing the case of Union of India v. N Murugesan. According to the legislation, such a selective adoption is not authorised because no party may approve or reprobate.
The Supreme Court stated that the candidate cannot argue the opposite to follow both sets of standards. There are differences not just in the method of selection but also in the structure of the recruitment authority. It is important to remember that, contrary to what the Respondents are attempting to argue, there is no such method for creating a waiting list under the 2015 Rules.
The court determined that an employer must always use enough discretion and some degree of flexibility when choosing an employee after analysing the position in the 2015 Rules. Only where a judgement is arbitrary or unlawful, which we do not believe is the case in this instance, can interference be made.
In regards to the conflict between the two Rules, the court decided that it is obvious that the later rules, despite being generic, will control the field where two sets of rules are at odds with one another. The possibility of changing the game's regulations after it has started was another problem the court addressed.
The Court decided that when the selection method is changed but not qualification or eligibility, the principle guiding modifying the rules of the game does not apply. In other words, an applicant cannot be denied the opportunity to participate in the hiring process after the advertisement is published and they submit an application.
The abovementioned principle will only be used in such circumstances; otherwise, the employer won't be able to hire a qualified applicant. As a result, the Court upheld the appeal, vacated the contested decisions from September 9, 2018, and October 30, 2019, and reinstated the Single Judge's ruling.
