Supreme Court on Public Recruitment Selection Criteria in the BPSC Assistant Engineer Case

The Supreme Court has once again drawn a clear line around how public recruitment processes must be conducted in India. In a ruling involving the Bihar Public Service Commission and the recruitment of Assistant Engineers, the court held that public recruitment selection criteria cannot be changed after candidates have already taken part in the process.

Setting aside an order of the Patna High Court, the bench ruled that once a recruitment process has begun under a set of published rules, any change to those rules that affects the outcome is not legally permissible. The court said candidates had the right to rely on the criteria that were announced when they applied and appeared for the examination.

The judgment brings into focus a principle that has been repeated by the Supreme Court over the years but is often tested in practice. Recruitment agencies and governments must not move the goalposts after the game has started.

What triggered the dispute over public recruitment selection criteria

The case arose from the recruitment process for Assistant Engineers conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission. The BPSC had issued an advertisement laying down specific public recruitment selection criteria for the post. These included how marks would be awarded and how candidates would be shortlisted after the preliminary examination.

Candidates applied, prepared, and took the preliminary exam on the basis of these announced rules.

After the prelims were over, however, the BPSC altered the selection formula. The changes had a direct impact on how candidates would be evaluated and who would be allowed to proceed to the next stage.

Some candidates challenged this change before the Patna High Court. The High Court upheld the Commission’s move, allowing the revised criteria to be applied even though the preliminary examination had already been conducted.

That decision was then taken to the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court said about changing rules midstream

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Patna High Court and sided with the affected candidates. The bench made it clear that changing public recruitment selection criteria after a key stage of the recruitment process has been completed violates basic principles of fairness.

The court reiterated a settled legal position. Once candidates act in accordance with a set of published rules, those rules cannot be changed midway in a manner that affects their chances.

The judgment noted that candidates had appeared for the preliminary examination based on a specific understanding of how they would be evaluated. Altering that understanding after the exam was over amounted to moving the finish line.

In plain terms, the court said that recruitment authorities cannot promise one set of rules and then apply another after candidates have already participated.

Why the preliminary exam stage was crucial

A key part of the court’s reasoning was the fact that the preliminary examination had already been conducted. This was not a case where rules were changed before the process started or even before any candidate had taken an exam.

By the time the criteria were revised, candidates had:

• Applied for the post

• Prepared based on the announced rules

• Taken the preliminary exam

The court treated this as a critical point of no return in the recruitment process. From that moment on, the original public recruitment selection criteria had to be respected.

The Supreme Court has previously held that recruitment rules can be amended prospectively. That means they can be changed for future selections. But they cannot be altered retrospectively to disadvantage or advantage candidates who have already participated under a different set of rules.

How the High Court order was set aside

The Patna High Court had taken the view that the Bihar Public Service Commission had the power to revise its selection process even after the preliminary examination.

The Supreme Court rejected that approach. It held that while recruiting bodies do have discretion to frame and modify recruitment rules, that discretion is limited by the requirement of fairness.

The court said that allowing changes after candidates have already acted on the basis of published rules would undermine confidence in public recruitment. It would also open the door to arbitrariness.

As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the original public recruitment selection criteria that were in force when the candidates took the preliminary exam.

What this means for the BPSC Assistant Engineer recruitment

For the Assistant Engineer recruitment in Bihar, the immediate effect of the judgment is that the Bihar Public Service Commission must go back to the original criteria that were announced in the advertisement.

The revised formula that was introduced after the prelims can no longer be applied. Candidates will be evaluated and shortlisted based on the rules that existed when they sat for the exam.

This provides relief to those who were disadvantaged by the change and restores the level playing field that the recruitment process was supposed to provide.

The ruling does not cancel the recruitment. It corrects the manner in which it is to be carried out.

Why public recruitment selection criteria are so sensitive

Government jobs in India attract lakhs of applicants. For many candidates, a single recruitment process can represent years of preparation and significant financial and emotional investment.

That is why public recruitment selection criteria are treated with such seriousness in law.

These criteria determine:

• Who qualifies for the next stage

• How merit is assessed

• Which candidates finally get appointed

Any change in these rules can alter outcomes dramatically.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that transparency and predictability are essential in public recruitment. Candidates must know the rules of the game before they play.

When authorities change those rules midstream, it creates uncertainty and raises questions about fairness and integrity.

A consistent line of rulings from the Supreme Court

The BPSC case fits into a long line of Supreme Court judgments on public employment. Time and again, the court has said that recruitment rules cannot be altered after the process has begun.

The principle is rooted in administrative law and the idea of legitimate expectation. When the state publishes a set of rules and invites applications, candidates acquire a legitimate expectation that those rules will be followed.

Changing the public recruitment selection criteria after candidates have acted on them violates that expectation.

The court has allowed changes only in limited circumstances, such as when the original rules are found to be illegal or unconstitutional. Even then, courts are cautious about how those changes are applied.

What recruitment agencies are expected to do

The judgment sends a clear message to recruitment bodies like the Bihar Public Service Commission and others across the country.

They are expected to:

• Finalise selection criteria before the process begins

• Publish those criteria clearly in the advertisement

• Stick to those criteria throughout the recruitment

If changes are necessary, they should apply only to future recruitment cycles.

The Supreme Court’s ruling makes it clear that convenience or administrative difficulty is not a valid reason to rewrite the rules after candidates have already taken an exam.

Why this ruling matters beyond one state

While the case arose from Bihar, its implications go far beyond one recruitment process.

Public recruitment selection criteria are used by:

• State public service commissions

• Staff selection commissions

• Recruitment boards for police, teachers, and engineers

• Government departments at the central and state level

Any of these bodies that tries to revise its rules after a recruitment has started will now face a higher risk of judicial intervention.

The Supreme Court has made it harder to justify such changes and easier for affected candidates to challenge them.

The balance between flexibility and fairness

Recruitment agencies often argue that they need flexibility to deal with unexpected situations, such as too many candidates qualifying or practical difficulties in conducting the next stage.

The Supreme Court’s answer to this is that such flexibility must be exercised before the process begins.

Once candidates have taken a step in reliance on announced public recruitment selection criteria, fairness requires that those criteria be honoured.

The BPSC case reinforces that principle in a clear and unambiguous way.

What happens next

With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Bihar Public Service Commission will have to continue the Assistant Engineer recruitment using the original criteria.

More broadly, the judgment stands as a reminder that public employment is governed not just by administrative convenience but by constitutional values of equality and fairness.

For the thousands of candidates who compete for government jobs every year, the message is equally clear. The rules that apply when you enter the process are the rules that must decide your fate.