The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Bench has ruled that mere participation in the examination does not confer any vested or indefeasible right to appointment or even to declaration of result. The State is competent to cancel a recruitment process prior to its culmination if found inconsistent with statutory provisions, in order to prevent perpetuation of illegality. The Court also clarified that the doctrine that “rules of the game cannot be changed after commencement” is inapplicable where the change is necessitated to ensure conformity with binding statutory rules.
As far as the cancellation of the recruitment process midway is concerned, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed that the post of Inspector (Legal Metrology) is integrally governed by the statutory scheme flowing from the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011 framed by the Central Government. Rule 28 of the Rules of 2011 prescribes the minimum educational qualification for appointment as Legal Metrology Officer, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, to be B.Sc. with Physics or Degree in Engineering/Technology or Diploma with requisite experience. The State Rules of 2013 are necessarily subordinate to the parent framework and cannot travel beyond or dilute the qualification prescribed therein.
Thus, the Bench clarified that the prescription of ‘simple graduation’ in the advertisement dated Oct 20, 2021 was inconsistent with the qualification mandated under Rule 28 of the Rules of 2011. Once such inconsistency came to light, the authorities were under a statutory obligation to rectify the error, and the cancellation of the examination was clearly aimed at preventing appointments in derogation of binding statutory provisions.
The observed that it is a settled proposition of service jurisprudence that mere participation in a recruitment process does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment or even to insist upon declaration of result. It noted that even inclusion in a select list does not confer an enforceable right to appointment. The petitioners were not even selectees; they were only participants in a process which stood cancelled prior to the declaration of results, and mere appearance in an examination pursuant to interim orders of the Court cannot create a legally protectable entitlement.
Moving further, the Bench held that the doctrine that ‘rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun’ is misplaced in the peculiar facts of the present case. The amendment dated June 26, 2023 inserting the requirement of Graduation with Physics was not an arbitrary or whimsical alteration designed to oust the petitioners, but a harmonizing amendment intended to bring the State Rules in conformity with the Rules of 2011. The doctrine cannot be invoked to compel the State to perpetuate an error which is demonstrably inconsistent with binding statutory provisions, and Courts cannot, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, issue a mandamus directing the authorities to proceed contrary to law.
As far as entitlement to the one-time relaxation granted by the Government of India, the Bench observed that the subsequent one-time relaxation on Nov 12, 2025 does not enure to the benefit of the petitioners. The relaxation was expressly confined to vacancies where the recruitment process had not been initiated. Since the earlier process stood cancelled and a fresh advertisement was issued in terms of amended Rules, the petitioners cannot invoke the relaxation order to revive a cancelled process or to claim consideration dehors the statutory mandate.
Briefly, the petitioners were working as Assistant Grade-III in the offices of the Assistant Controller/Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight and Measure) in different districts of Chhattisgarh. The State Government had framed the Chhattisgarh Legal Metrology Class III (Non-Ministerial) Recruitment Rules, 2013, under which one of the essential eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Inspector was possession of a Graduation Degree from a recognized University. Pursuant to this, the Controller, Food & Civil Supplies, issued a memo inviting applications from eligible Class-III employees for participating in the Departmental Promotion Competitive Examination for the next higher post of Inspector (Legal Metrology).
The petitioners submitted their applications and were initially declared eligible to participate in the examination vide a list dated April 20, 2022. However, an amended list dated Sep 29, 2022 was subsequently issued whereby the petitioners were declared ineligible on the ground that they did not possess a Graduation Degree with Physics as one of the subjects, an additional condition that was not part of the original eligibility criteria under the Rules of 2013. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a writ, and the Court, by order dated Nov 25, 2022, permitted them to participate in the examination conducted on Dec 17, 2022.
Thereafter, without declaration of the result, the respondents cancelled the entire examination stating ‘due to unavoidable reasons’. In the interregnum, the respondents amended the Rules on June 26, 2023 by inserting a specific clause in Schedule-IV mandating that only those employees having a Graduation Degree with Physics as one of the subjects would be eligible to participate in the promotional examination. On the basis of the amended Rules, the respondents issued a fresh advertisement dated Aug 10, 2023 for conducting the Departmental Promotion Examination, superseding the earlier process.
Appearances:
Advocates A.N. Bhakta and Vivek Bhakta, for the Petitioner
Additional Advocate General Yashwant Singh Thakur, for the Respondent/ State
