#selection process

The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the Haryana PSC’s post-shortlisting interview cut-off, finding that mid-process changes to recruitment criteria breach constitutional equality and reservation guarantees. It ordered a fresh evaluation of candidates strictly per the original advertisement’s minimum qualifying marks, protecting all aspirants affected by the arbitrary change.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that candidates excluded from a revised cut-off list due to recomputation of exam results hold no indefeasible right to proceed to the next stage. The court emphasized that selection lists remain provisional until finalization, rejecting claims of vested rights under natural justice principles.

Allahabad HC rules that State recruitment rules under Article 309 of the Constitution override Central Council recommendations, barring post-selection challenges by candidates who participated without objection. The judgment reinforces the supremacy of State service laws in employment disputes, impacting public sector recruitment across India.

The Supreme Court ruled that candidates cannot claim appointment merely due to non-disclosure of exam records by authorities. Proof of passing the examination is mandatory, and compensation may be awarded for procedural lapses, but not automatic appointment. This reinforces the burden of proof on candidates in public sector recruitment disputes.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that when a statutory board ratifies an appointment, any prior procedural irregularities are cured, and the appointment cannot be nullified after the candidate has joined and relinquished prior employment. This reinforces the principle that substantive fairness trumps technical non-compliance once service has commenced, protecting public employees from arbitrary revocation.

The Central Administrative Tribunal holds that cancelling a finalized promotion panel for Junior Engineers on grounds of belated objections and minor procedural irregularities violates natural justice and undermines legitimate expectations. This ruling protects candidates who have completed mandatory training and reinforces that administrative finality must prevail absent gross misconduct or fraud.

J&K High Court rules that a candidate wrongfully excluded from a selection process despite higher merit must be granted notional seniority from the appointment date of peers, along with Old Pension Scheme benefits and refund of deductions. The judgment reinforces constitutional remedies for arbitrary exclusion in public employment.

CAT Allahabad rules that denial of promotion despite higher marks and an unfilled vacancy violates principles of equality in employment. The tribunal directs notional promotion with retrospective benefits, setting a precedent for service jurisprudence where administrative discretion cannot override merit-based entitlements.

Gauhati High Court rules that failure to submit a No Objection Certificate (NOC) does not invalidate a candidate's selection if they provide a resignation undertaking. The court held that desirable qualifications like Open Distance Learning (ODL) experience do not disqualify a candidate, reinforcing flexibility in service rule compliance for government employment.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that procedural irregularities alone cannot justify cancellation of a departmental promotion exam; definitive proof of inextricable malpractice is mandatory.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh holds that altering recruitment criteria mid-process without notification violates Articles 14 and 16, invalidating selections ab initio.

Calcutta High Court holds that removing tattoos after detailed medical examination to circumvent disqualification renders the process otiose, upholding procedural integrity in CAPF recruitment.

The High Court holds that candidates who voluntarily participate in selection processes without objection cannot later challenge criteria after failing to qualify.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that altering age limits after advertisement issuance violates fair recruitment principles, upholding K. Manjusree precedent.