Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court delivered a landmark judgment striking down the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's (RPSC) method of awarding disproportionate weightage to interview marks in its recruitment process for Assistant Professors. The court held that procedural amendments, such as limiting interview marks to 10% under the amended Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, have retrospective application. The court directed the RPSC to finalize the selection process in adherence to the amended rule, ensuring meritocracy and transparency.

"Interviews Cannot Supplant Written Tests as the Sole Basis for Selection"

The RPSC issued an advertisement dated November 27, 2021, inviting applications for Assistant Professors in various medical specialties, including Skin and VD. The petitioner, Dr. Rachita Mathur, applied and appeared for the written examination held on May 6, 2022.
Meanwhile, the Rajasthan government amended Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, through a notification dated May 23, 2022. The amendment limited the weightage of interview marks to a maximum of 10% of total marks in any recruitment examination to ensure fairness and transparency. Despite this, the RPSC continued to follow its earlier criteria, allocating 40% weightage to interviews, 20% to academic performance, and 40% to written tests.

Dr. Mathur challenged the selection process, contending that the RPSC's failure to apply the amended Rule 19 retrospectively violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

The court clarified that procedural rules, such as those governing the weightage of interview marks, are retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. It held that the amended Rule 19, limiting interview marks to 10%, applied to all ongoing recruitment processes, including the one initiated by the advertisement dated November 27, 2021.
"Procedural laws, by their very nature, are retrospective in operation and ensure transparency and fairness in public recruitment," the court observed.

The court found that allocating 40% weightage to interviews violated the constitutional principles of equality and non-arbitrariness. Relying on Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722], the court held that interviews can only supplement written tests and must not disproportionately influence the outcome of a selection process.

"Interviews cannot be the sole determinant in public employment as they fail to ensure objective assessment of merit," the court stated.

During the proceedings, the court uncovered irregularities in the RPSC's conduct of interviews. The court noted that marksheets lacked proper signatures, experts were designated as "advisors," and no rationale was recorded for awarding marks.

"The opaque and unaccountable practices of the RPSC undermine the integrity of the recruitment process," the court remarked.

The court criticized the RPSC for altering the selection criteria mid-process by relying on outdated rules from earlier advertisements. Citing Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [AIR 1987 SC 454], it held that changing the rules mid-way violates the principles of fairness and equal opportunity.
"Recruitment rules must remain consistent during the entire selection process to avoid arbitrariness and ensure a level playing field," the court emphasized.

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition, issuing the following directives:
1.    The selection process for Assistant Professors under the advertisement dated November 27, 2021, must adhere to the amended Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, limiting interview marks to 10% of total marks.
2.    The petitioner's candidature must be reconsidered based on merit, ensuring adherence to the principles of transparency and fairness.
3.    The RPSC must implement procedural safeguards, such as maintaining detailed records of interviews, to prevent arbitrary decision-making in future recruitment processes.

The court also directed the RPSC to ensure uniform application of the amended Rule 19 in all ongoing and future recruitment processes, following the precedent set in this case.

Date of Decision: January 10, 2025