Recruitment Process Carried Out As Per Statute Can't Be Arbitrarily Scrapped Midway Through Govt Order : Supreme Court

Setting aside the Tripura Government's decision to scrap ongoing recruitments midway and replace them with a fresh process under the New Recruitment Policy, 2018 (“NRP”), the Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 28) ruled that executive instructions cannot override statutory recruitment processes and the rules governing them.

The Court said that “executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India cannot override the act done under the statute and the rules made thereunder. The Executive instructions can only supplement the act and rules through which recruitment process was carried out, but it cannot supplant the specific provisions which already occupy the field.”

“It is not the case of the government that to fill the gaps and to supplement the TSR Act and TSR Rules, the NRP is relevant, therefore, Abeyance Memorandum or Cancellation Memorandum may be upheld. In absence of the same, in our view, the action of the government in cancelling the process of recruitment for the post of Enrolled Followers is not justified and would amount to arbitrary exercise of power.”, the court added.

The bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal heard the pleas filed by the candidates who were aggrieved by the State's action of scrapping the undergoing recruitment process, which was at advanced stage, and ordering fresh recruitment process under the new recruitment policy.

The appellants contended that no credible justification was issued by the State for scrapping the existing recruitment drive and replacing it with fresh recruitment process under the NPR. They further contended that the State's justification that the fresh recruitment process was carried out in the 'larger public interest' was vague, and not sufficient ground to interfere with the ongoing recruitment process.

Criticizing the State's act, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari observed:

“It goes without saying that certain level of discretion must be given to the State but merely suggesting that a decision to keep an ongoing recruitment process in abeyance and its subsequent cancellation was in the larger public interest, is not sufficient. The burden is on the State to justify the decision on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and show how its decision was in furtherance of larger public interest…..In our considered opinion, the State has miserably failed in discharging such burden, and in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are unable to agree with the contention of the State that the decision to keep the ongoing recruitment process in abeyance and its subsequent cancellation was in the larger public interest.”

Candidate's Doesn't Have Right To Selection In Recruitment Process, But Have Legitimate Expectation That Selection Process Will Be Conducted Fairly

“However, the candidates who have taken part in a recruitment process conducted by a public authority have a legitimate expectation that the selection process will be conducted fairly and without arbitrariness. Consistency and predictability are important aspects of non-arbitrariness, and the rule of law obligates the State to only take decisions which are rooted in fairness and equality.”, the court said.

“In the present case, it is not that the State has decided to fill up only some of the available vacancies, but rather it has decided to do away with the recruitment process altogether. It goes without saying that the State's decision not to appoint a person who has been placed on the select list must not be arbitrary and must be rooted in objective reasoning. The recruitment process, especially when it is conducted on the strength of Act and Rules, cannot be left at the whims and fancies of the State to interfere, through executive orders, without adhering to the principles of consistency and predictability, which are warranted by the rule of law and are pillars of non-arbitrariness.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, quashing the cancellation orders and directed the Tripura government to complete the stalled recruitment processes within 2 months for Enrolled Followers & Inspector of Boilers and 4 months for TCS/TPS Grade-II.

Further, it directed the recruitments to be completed under the original rules in force when the advertisements were issued.

Cause Title: PARTHA DAS & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. (and connected case)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 850

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Dr. Lokendra Malik, Adv. Mr. Ajit Pandey, Adv. Mr. R. Balasubramanian,, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Sanya Minhas, Adv. Mr. B. Venkatraman, Adv. Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Balasubramanian,, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Sanya Minhas, Adv. Mr. B. Venkatraman, Adv. Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Zulfiker Ali P. S, AOR Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv. Ms. Syed Nazarat Fatima, Adv. Mr. J. Karan Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Pranab Prakash, AOR