The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection Board (JKSBB), thereby affirming the Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s ruling that changing evaluation criteria after interviews is arbitrary and not permissible.
JKSBB had invited applications for Forester posts, setting eligibility as 10+2 with science and allotting 25 points in selection weightage for B.Sc. Forestry degrees. After candidate interviews, it altered the evaluation by bifurcating B.Sc. Forestry courses, awarding 25 points for four-year courses and 20 for three-year courses. Candidates with three-year degrees challenged this change as it impacted the select list prepared post-interviews.
The High Court Single Judge initially dismissed the petition against the Board’s decision. On intra-court appeal, the Division Bench allowed the writ petitions filed by candidates holding three-year degrees, observed the post-interview change was impermissible, and directed relief for adversely affected candidates. The Board challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
The Board contended that the differentiation was justified as the four-year course was qualitatively different, and the change was necessary based on representations. Respondents argued the change was arbitrary, violated principles of transparency and fairness and was impermissible after all stages of evaluation were complete. The Supreme Court
The Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that the evaluation modification post-interview was arbitrary, non-transparent, and lacked rational nexus with eligibility requirements that remained unchanged.
The judgment emphasized that any recruitment procedure must be non-arbitrary, transparent, have rational nexus, and safeguard candidates’ legitimate expectations. Therefore, the Board’s post-interview change lacked transparency and did not align rationally with the original minimum eligibility of 10+2 with science.
In result, the Court dismissed the Board’s appeal, upholding the High Court Division Bench’s decision that the late alteration of evaluation criteria was arbitrary and unlawful. The Court recognized that the affected candidates had already participated in all stages of selection under a given set of criteria, and such changes post-facto harm their rights. Directions were given that affected candidates should be adjusted in service with all benefits, including creation of additional posts if vacancies were unavailable.
Appearances:
For the Appellant(s): Mr. G.M.Kawoosa, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rahul, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR
