Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment

“Selection Cannot Be Rewritten by Executive Whim After Merit List Is Out” – Apex Court Invalidates Retrospective Weightage to Contractual Engineers in Bihar. In a decisive reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards in public employment, the Supreme Court on January 6, 2026, in Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., delivered a landmark judgment invalidating the retrospective application of an amended recruitment rule introduced after the merit list had already been published. The Court struck down the 2022 amendment to the Bihar Engineering Services Class–II Recruitment Rules, 2019, which granted contractual engineers weightage and age relaxation with retrospective effect, holding it violative of Articles 14, 16, and 309 of the Constitution.

Delivering the judgment, a Division Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi declared: “The retrospective application of Rule 8(5), introduced by the 2022 Amendment Rules, cannot be sustained insofar as the recruitment process initiated under the 2019 Advertisements is concerned.”

“Once the Game Has Begun, the Rules Cannot Be Altered” – Court Reiterates Binding Principle from Tej Prakash Pathak and K. Manjusree

The Court sternly criticized the State of Bihar for changing the basis of selection after the completion of the written examination and publication of provisional merit lists. While acknowledging that the State has the power to amend service rules under the proviso to Article 309, the Court clarified that such powers “are not unbridled and cannot be exercised to take away accrued or vested rights or to arbitrarily disturb a recruitment process which has substantially progressed.”

Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court and the earlier precedent of K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., the Supreme Court reaffirmed: “Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway unless expressly permitted by rules.”

The Court emphasized that once candidates had competed under the 2019 Rules, which awarded selection solely on written examination marks, the State could not “rewrite the rules of the game” by retroactively rewarding contractual experience.

“Merit List Provisional for Verification, Not for Legal Ambush” – Provisional Nature Doesn’t Justify Rule Change

Rejecting the State’s argument that the merit lists were only provisional and hence no rights had accrued, the Court clarified: “The list was provisional subject to verification of documents, not subject to a fundamental change in the criteria for placement in the merit list itself.”

The Court stressed that legitimate expectation had arisen in favour of candidates who participated under the original criteria, making the retrospective rule change constitutionally impermissible.

“Changing the eligibility criteria for placement in the merit list, after conclusion of the written examination, contrary to the extant rules prevalent at the time of the advertisement, cannot be justified,” the Bench held.

“No Executive Memo Can Override Statutory Rules” – Court Rejects Bihar’s Defence Based on GAD Memos

The State of Bihar attempted to justify its retrospective amendment by citing the 2018 and 2021 Memos issued by the General Administration Department (GAD), which envisioned weightage to contractual employees. However, the Court categorically held that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules.

“There was no whisper about the applicability of the said resolutions in the 2019 advertisements,” the Court observed. “Such reliance by the State is a clear afterthought.”

“Public Policy Cannot Justify Post-Hoc Changes” – Court Finds State’s Actions Arbitrary and Unfair

While the State projected the 2022 amendment as a policy to reward contractual experience, the Court found this justification unsustainable in law. “After the examination has been conducted, no public purpose can be served by changing the criteria for selection at this stage,” the judgment observed.

The Court reiterated that policy decisions, even when backed by legislative competence, must pass the tests of non-arbitrariness, transparency, and fairness under Articles 14 and 16.

“Retrospective Law Can’t Undo Finality of Selection Process” – Selection Must Be Finalized Under Unamended Rules

Holding the 2022 amendment inapplicable to the ongoing recruitment, the Supreme Court directed that the selection to the post of Assistant Engineer in Bihar pursuant to the 2019 advertisements must be finalized strictly under the unamended 2019 Rules, solely based on written examination scores.

“The final merit list shall be drawn and appointments shall be made, completing the process within two months from the date of this judgment,” the Court ordered.

Regarding appointments already made under the now-invalidated High Court judgment, the Court granted liberty to the State to either continue those appointees against available vacancies or create supernumerary posts without disturbing the merit list drawn under the 2019 Rules.

SLP on Rule’s Validity Left Open – High Court Directed to Decide Challenge to Rule 8(5)

Importantly, the Supreme Court did not adjudicate the constitutional validity of Rule 8(5) itself. The connected SLP (C) No. 8231 of 2025, challenging Rule 8(5) on broader constitutional grounds, was disposed of with a direction that the Patna High Court shall decide the pending CWJC No. 18429 of 2025 “on its own merits without being influenced by this judgment.”

The Bench clarified: “We have not examined the challenge to the vires of Rule 8(5) itself or the 2022 Amendment Rules… all contentions shall be kept open.”

Conclusion: Judicial Certainty Reinforced in Public Employment

This judgment serves as a significant reiteration of constitutional discipline in public recruitment, sending a clear message to governments that rulebooks cannot be rewritten mid-selection to suit shifting policy whims or to accommodate categories retrospectively.

By restoring the sanctity of pre-declared recruitment criteria, the Court has ensured that public employment remains a domain of fairness, equal opportunity, and legitimate expectation rather than executive improvisation.

Date of Decision: January 6, 2026