Cannot Change Rules Of The Game Mid-Way: Calcutta High Court Quashes Refusal To Approve Selection Process Initiated Under 2005 Rules

"The recruitment process commences with the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ordinarily continues until the vacancies are filled. It further held that the eligibility criteria notified at the commencement of the recruitment process cannot be changed midway unless the extant Rules so permit." Calcutta High Court, in a ruling dated August 25, 2026, held that a recruitment process initiated under the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2005, cannot be nullified by the subsequent introduction of the 2009 Rules.

Justice Rai Chattopadhyay, while allowing a writ petition, emphasized that the state cannot invoke a new regulatory regime to retrospectively invalidate a selection process that had already reached an advanced stage.

The petitioner, a candidate for a Group-D staff position, challenged an order by the District Inspector (DI) of Schools, Purulia, which refused to approve a recruitment panel prepared on August 11, 2009. The DI had contended that since the West Bengal School Service Commission Rules, 2009, came into force on July 9, 2009, any panel prepared thereafter was invalid, and further alleged procedural lapses in the school’s initial recruitment timeline.

The primary question before the court was whether a selection process commenced under the 2005 Rules could be subjected to the 2009 Rules midway, thereby rendering the pending panel void. The court also examined whether a minor delay in requisitioning candidates from the Employment Exchange could serve as a valid ground to extinguish an entire recruitment process that had otherwise proceeded transparently.

Rule Against Mid-Stream Changes

The court relied heavily on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, reaffirming the principle that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed once a recruitment process is underway. The bench observed that candidates enter a selection process based on the legal framework existing at the time of the advertisement, and the state cannot, through executive instructions, retrospectively alter these conditions to the prejudice of participants.

"Rules of the Game" Cannot Be Altered

The court noted that the mere fact that an interview occurred after the 2009 Rules came into force did not transition the process into the new regime. Because the advertisement and initial steps were tethered to the 2005 Rules, the selection process remained governed by that framework until its logical conclusion.

"The recruitment process was permitted to proceed; the Employment Exchange furnished sponsored candidates; the School Authority issued the advertisement; and the candidates were ultimately subjected to the selection process."

Rejection of Executive Overreach

The DI’s reliance on a 2010 executive instruction directing that no panels prepared after July 9, 2009, should be entertained was dismissed as legally unsustainable. Justice Chattopadhyay held that an executive circular cannot override the vested right of candidates to have a selection process brought to its natural completion, nor can it retrospectively apply new legislation where no transitional provisions exist to cover pending processes.

Procedural Lapses Not Fatal

Addressing the claim that the school delayed its requisition by 88 days, the court ruled that such a lapse, even if a violation of the 2005 Rules, did not automatically nullify the entire process. The court observed that the delay was anterior to the selection stages and caused no prejudice to the state or competing candidates, emphasizing that courts should not impose the "drastic consequence of nullity" unless the statute explicitly mandates it.

The High Court set aside the impugned order of the DI and directed the immediate approval of the petitioner’s appointment. Crucially, the court ordered that the approval be granted with "notional effect" from August 26, 2009, the date the panel was initially forwarded for approval. The state was further directed to fix the petitioner’s pay scale, ensuring the grant of all increment, promotion, and service benefits accrued since that date.

Date of Decision: 25 August 2026