Legitimate Expectation & Article 14 | Bombay HC Bars Mid-Process Change in PMC Promotion Rules : Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the principle that promotion rules cannot be altered midway through a selection process once it has commenced. The Court held that the Pune Municipal Corporation’s (PMC) decision to cancel a nearly completed promotion process for Junior Engineers (Civil) and apply amended rules was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The judgment underscores the binding nature of extant rules at the time of process initiation and the doctrine of legitimate expectation in service jurisprudence.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, employees of the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) holding Class IV posts, challenged the PMC’s decision to cancel the Select List for promotion to Junior Engineer (Civil) after the recruitment process had substantially progressed. The dispute arose from the PMC Service Rules, 2014, which initially provided for 25% quota for promotion and 75% for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The educational qualifications for both direct recruitment and promotion were identical: a Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering. However, direct recruits required three years of engineering experience, while promotees needed five years of service in PMC. The selection method was seniority-cum-merit.

Key Facts

• 26.08.2014: PMC Service Rules, 2014 notified, prescribing 25% promotional quota and 75% direct recruitment quota for Junior Engineer (Civil) posts.
• 29.01.2021: PMC issued a Circular inviting applications from Class-III and Class-IV employees for promotion to Junior Engineer (Civil). Eligibility criteria included five years of uninterrupted service and possession of the prescribed qualification.
• 03.12.2021: PMC published a Draft Seniority List of eligible employees for promotion.
• 31.05.2023: PMC published a further Draft Seniority List of 20 eligible candidates.
• 14.12.2023: State Government amended the PMC Service Rules, 2014 via Government Resolution, reducing the promotional quota from 25% to 15%, changing the educational qualification to "Full-Time Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering", and altering the selection method from seniority-cum-merit to merit through examination.
• 20.12.2023: PMC issued a Circular announcing a written examination for promotion to Junior Engineer (Civil), scheduled for 28.01.2024.
• 11.06.2025: PMC issued an impugned order cancelling the promotion process initiated by the 29.01.2021 Circular, citing the need to comply with the amended 2023 Rules.
• 09.01.2024: PMC issued an advertisement for direct recruitment to 113 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil).
• 12.08.2025: A corrigendum increased the posts from 113 to 169.
• 01.10.2025: A revised advertisement was issued for direct recruitment to 169 posts.
• 17.01.2026: PMC issued a public notice announcing the written examination for direct recruitment on 25.01.2026.

Procedural History

• 17.11.2022: Pune Mahanagarpalika Kamgar Union filed Writ Petition No. 15966 of 2022 seeking direction to PMC to complete the promotion process as per the 29.01.2021 Circular.
• 17.06.2023: PMC filed a reply affidavit in WP No. 15966/2022, stating it was in the process of making promotions.
• 01.01.2024: The High Court disposed of WP No. 15966/2022, keeping all contentions open.
• 2024-2025: Multiple writ petitions (WP No. 1096/2024, WP No. 1575/2026, WP No. 2164/2024, WP No. 2217/2024, WP No. 8496/2025, WP No. 846/2024) were filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 and the Government Resolution dated 14.12.2023.
• 30.06.2026: The Division Bench of Bombay High Court reserved judgment.
• 02.07.2026: The judgment was pronounced, allowing the petitions.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioners:

• The petitioners contended that the PMC Service Rules, 2014 were applicable to the promotion process initiated by the 29.01.2021 Circular.
• They relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. to argue that eligibility criteria and selection methods cannot be changed midway through a recruitment process.
• The petitioners highlighted that the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 was arbitrary and violated their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
• They argued that the PMC’s action of filling 135 and 169 posts by direct recruitment while keeping the promotional quota in limbo was discriminatory and illegal.
• The petitioners also placed on record a legal opinion obtained by PMC under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which advised against cancelling the selection process.

For the Respondents (PMC and State):

• The PMC contended that no final promotion orders were issued, and thus the amended 2023 Rules were applicable.
• It relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar & Ors. to argue that vacancies occurring prior to amendment must be filled under new rules.
• The PMC argued that the decision to apply the 2023 Rules was a policy decision and could not be challenged.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought the following reliefs:

• (a) Quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 cancelling the promotion process.
• (b) A declaration that the Government Resolution dated 14.12.2023 is not applicable to the promotion process initiated by the 29.01.2021 Circular.
• (c) A writ of mandamus restraining PMC from making appointments by direct recruitment pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.01.2024 until the promotion process is completed.
• (d) A writ of mandamus directing PMC to complete the promotion process under the unamended PMC Service Rules, 2014.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the PMC could change the eligibility criteria, quota, and selection method midway through a promotion process that had already commenced, and whether such a change violated the doctrine of legitimate expectation and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• The petitioners argued that the PMC Service Rules, 2014 were binding at the time of commencement of the selection process.
• They relied on Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. to contend that changing rules midway deprived them of equal opportunity in public employment.
• The petitioners emphasized that the PMC’s action was arbitrary, as it filled posts by direct recruitment while keeping the promotional quota in limbo.
• They highlighted that the PMC had conceded in its reply affidavit that the selection process was 99% complete before cancellation.

For the Respondents

• The PMC contended that no final promotion orders were issued, and thus the amended 2023 Rules were applicable.
• It relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar & Ors. to argue that vacancies must be filled under the rules in force at the time of consideration.
• The PMC argued that the decision to apply the 2023 Rules was a policy decision and could not be challenged under service jurisprudence.

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a detailed examination of the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the principles of non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Key aspects of the analysis included:

• Admitted Facts: The Court noted that the selection process commenced on 29.01.2021, and the petitioners were eligible under the 2014 Rules. The Draft Seniority Lists were published on 03.12.2021 and 31.05.2023, indicating the process was nearly complete.

• PMC’s Arbitrary Action: The Court observed that the PMC filled 135 and 169 posts by direct recruitment while keeping the promotional quota in limbo. The impugned order dated 11.06.2025 provided no justification for cancelling the process, which was 99% complete.

• Legitimate Expectation: The Court held that the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that the process would be completed under the 2014 Rules, as the new rules were notified much later.

"The aforesaid admitted facts clearly indicate that the PMC had wielded two standards/yardsticks in its approach to fill up 75% posts by direct recruitment to hastily make such appointments, whereas insofar as 25% promotional post of its own employees were concerned, the same was kept in a limbo for a substantial period, i.e., from the commencement of the said process on 29 January, 2021 till the entire process which was 99% complete, was cancelled almost after four years on 11 June, 2025."

• Application of Tej Prakash Pathak Principles: The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., which held:

"65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; 65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; 65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha. Subash Chander Marwaha deals with the right to be appointed from the select list whereas K. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the select list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; 65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved; 65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; 65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list."

• Distinguishing State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar: The Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar & Ors., which held that vacancies must be filled under the rules in force at the time of consideration. The Court observed that the present case was governed by Tej Prakash Pathak, which overruled the broad proposition in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao that vacancies must be filled under the rules existing when they arose.

The Verdict

The Bombay High Court allowed the petitions and issued the following directions:

1. The impugned order dated 11.06.2025 cancelling the promotion process was quashed and set aside.
2. It was declared that the promotion process initiated by the 29.01.2021 Circular would be governed by the PMC Service Rules, 2014.
3. The PMC was directed to conclude the promotion process within three weeks from the date of the judgment, issuing appointment orders with seniority from the relevant date.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Promotion Rules Cannot Be Changed Midway

• Binding Nature of Extant Rules: Once a selection process commences, the rules in force at that time are binding. Changing eligibility criteria, quota, or selection methods midway is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
• Legitimate Expectation: Employees have a legitimate expectation that the process will be completed under the rules applicable at the time of commencement. Public authorities must ensure consistency, transparency, and predictability in decision-making.

Direct Recruitment Cannot Prejudice Promotional Quota

• Non-Discriminatory Approach: Public employers cannot fill posts by direct recruitment while keeping promotional quotas in limbo. Such actions are discriminatory and violate the principle of equal opportunity.
• Seniority Implications: If promotional quotas are not filled, promotees may be rendered junior to direct recruits, leading to arbitrary outcomes.

Judicial Scrutiny of Policy Decisions

• Policy Decisions Must Be Justified: Public authorities cannot rely on policy decisions to justify arbitrary actions. Fairness and reasonableness must be demonstrated, especially when legitimate expectations are involved.

• Legal Opinions Matter: If a legal opinion advises against an action, public authorities must provide cogent reasons for disregarding it. Silence or lack of justification can lead to judicial intervention.

• Practitioners must ensure that promotion processes are completed under the rules applicable at commencement.

• Challenging arbitrary cancellations can be grounded in Articles 14 and 16 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

• Direct recruitment advertisements should not be issued until promotional quotas are filled to avoid discriminatory outcomes.

• Public employers must justify policy decisions with transparent and non-arbitrary reasoning.