{"file_name": "2024_10_1344_1358_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1344 : 2024 INSC 763\n\nShashi Bhushan Prasad Singh \nv. \nThe State of Bihar and Others\n\n(Civil Appeal No. 11030 of 2024)\n\n04 October 2024\n\n[Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nDespite the preparation of the Final Select List which signals the \nconclusion  of  the  appointment  process,  the  State  Government \nsought  to  scrap  the  entire  process  and  undertake  a  fresh \nappointment process under the New Rules. Whether this amounted \nto effectively changing the rules of the game after the game was \nplayed which is impermissible and deprives the candidates of their \nlegitimate right of consideration under the previous Rules.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nBihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering \n(Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015 – Bihar Water Resources \nDepartment Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment \n(Amendment)  Rules  2017  –  Recruitment  –  Appointment \nprocess  –  Bihar  Technical  Service  Commission  invited \napplications  for  vacancies  to  the  post  of  Junior  Engineer \nacross various state departments vide Advertisement dated \n08.03.2019  –  The  applications  of  the  private  respondents \nherein were found ineligible by the BTSC on the ground that \ntheir institutions were not approved by the All-India Council \nof  Technical  Education  (AICTE)  –  Writ  petitions  were  filed  – \nAfter  various  orders  of  the  High  Court,  a  Final  Select  List \nwas  prepared  on  19.12.2022,  put  under  sealed  cover  and \npermission of the Court was sought by filing an interlocutory \napplication – However, application was adjourned after Court \nwas informed that the State Government was contemplating \na review of the entire process – Later on 25.01.2023, decision \nwas  taken  by  the  State  Government  inter  alia  to  cancel  the \nentire appointment process under the Advertisement and to \ninitiate approval for the amended Rules:\n\n* Author\n\n\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1345\n\nHeld: In the instant case, despite the preparation of the Final Select \nList  which  signals  the  conclusion  of  the  appointment  process, \nthe  State  Government  seeks  to  scrap  the  entire  process  and \nundertake a fresh appointment process under the New Rules – In \nthe  considered  opinion  of  this  Court,  this  amounts  to  effectively \nchanging the rules of the game after the game was played which \nis  impermissible  and  deprives  the  candidates  of  their  legitimate \nright of consideration under the previous Rules – The High Court \nin the impugned order has abruptly and without assigning reasons \nand without adjudicating any issues involved in the writ petitions, \ndisposed  of  the  same,  recording  the  statement  made  by  the \ncounsel for the State, and permitted the State to amend Rules in \nquestion  –  Since,  the  entire  recruitment  process  was  concluded \nas  per  the  extant  Rules  till  the  selection  list  was  declared  on \n02.04.2022, which has not been specifically set aside by the High \nCourt, and since the AICTE has also continued its stand that its \napproval is not necessary for the private institutions, and since the \norder  dated  19.04.2022  (in  which  the  first  Select  List  was  partly \nset aside) has attained finality, the interest of justice would be met \nif the State/Commission is directed to prepare a fresh select list \nof  meritorious  candidates  in  respect  of  the Advertisement  dated \n08.03.2019  –  Hence,  it  is  directed  that  a  fresh  selection  list  for \nthe vacancies advertised in the Advertisement dated 08.03.2019 \nbe prepared of the meritorious candidates in compliance with the \norder  dated  19.04.2022  passed  by  the  High  Court  –  The  Fresh \nSelect  List  shall  also  include  those  meritorious  candidates  who \nwere  otherwise  eligible  but  were  declared  ineligible  solely  on \naccount of the 2017 amendment to the Rules i.e., on account of \ntheir institute not being recognised by the AICTE, and all similarly \nplaced successful candidates. [Paras 26, 27, 29]\n\nCase Law Cited\n\nBharathidasan  University  & Anr.  v. AICTE  &  Ors.  [2001]  Supp. \n3  SCR  253  :  (2001)  8  SCC  676;  Punjab  National  Bank  v. Anit \nKumar Das [2020] 9 SCR 925 : (2021) 12 SCC 80; The Chairman \nSBI & Anr. v. M.J. James [2021] 7 SCR 373 : (2022) 2 SCC 301;  \nK.  Manjusree  v.  State  of Andhra  Pradesh  & Anr.  [2008]  2  SCR \n1025 : (2008) 3 SCC 512 – referred to.\n\nList of Acts\n\nBihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) \nCadre Recruitment Rules, 2015; Bihar Water Resources Department \n\nShashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1346 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nSubordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) \nRules 2017;  All-India Council of Technical Education Act 1987.\n\nList of Keywords\n\nService Law; Recruitment; Appointment; Changing the rules of the \ngame after the game was played; Legitimate right of consideration; \nAll-India Council of Technical Education;  Bihar Technical Service \nCommission.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11030 of 2024\n\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2023 of the High Court \nof Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 3411 of 2022\n\nWith\n\nCivil Appeal Nos. 11031, 11032, 11033 and 11034 of 2024\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nMs. Meenakshi Arora, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, P. S. Patwalia, Ranjit \nKumar, Rudreshwar Singh, Sr. Advs., Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh \nKaushik, Barun Dey, Rony John, Vansh Kalra, Ms. Malvika Singh, \nManoj Kumar Srivastava, Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Ms. Rebecca \nMishra, Gopal Singh, Shivam Singh, Suyash Vyas, Smarhar Singh, \nMs. Shweta Kumari, Manoj Kumar, Md. Asim, Pankaj Prakash, Prem \nPrakash,  Ms.  Vineeta  Singh, Aditya  Harsh,  Ms.  Deepali  Nanda, \nYadav Narender Singh, Anil Soni, Harish Pandey, Aditya Vaibhav \nSingh, Ms. Vanya Gupta, Neeraj Shekhar, Mrs. Kshama Sharma, \nArvind Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nJudgment\n\nSatish Chandra Sharma, J. \n\n1. \n\nLeave Granted. \n\n2.  The  present  batch  of  appeals  arise  out  of  judgement  dated \n16.02.2023,  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Patna  in \nCivil  Writ  Jurisdiction  Case  No.  3411/2022  (‘CWJC’)  along  with \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1347\n\nother connected matters (the ‘Impugned Order’), whereby the Writ \nPetitioners who were the unsuccessful candidates in the Recruitment \nProcess conducted pursuant to the Advertisement dated 08.03.2019 \nfor the post of Junior Engineer  (Civil), had challenged  the vires of \nRule 9(1)(ii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate \nEngineering  (Civil)  Cadre  Recruitment  (Amendment)  Rules  2017, \npublished  vide  notification  dated  07.11.2017,  prescribing  technical \nqualification  eligibility  for  selection/appointment  to  the  technical \npost in the State of Bihar. The appellants before this Court are the \nsuccessful candidates in the said Recruitment Process. \n\n3.  The present matter begins with the issuance of Advertisement No. \n01/2019 dated 08.03.2019 by the Bihar Technical Service Commission \n(‘BTSC’) inviting applications for 6,379 vacancies to the post of Junior \nEngineer across various state departments (the ‘Advertisement’). \nThe Advertisement specified that the educational qualification required \nfor the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) as under: \n\n“Educational Eligibility. \n\na) Junior Engineer (Civil)\n\ni. Diploma-in-Civil Engineering conferred by the concerned \nTechnical  Educational  Council/University  recognised \nby All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi. \n\nii. Diploma-in-Civil Engineering through non-distance mode \nconferred by the concerned Deemed University established \nunder  the  UGC Act  provided  the  Deemed  University  is \nduly  approved  by  the  University  Grants  Commission  for \nthe said Course.” \n\nIt  is  pertinent  to  note  that  this  requirement  is  drawn  from  and  is \nidentical to Rule 9(1)(iii) of the Bihar Water Resources Department \nSubordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015 (the \n‘Rules’) as amended in 2017. \n\n4.  The  private  Respondents  in  the  present  appeal  were  the  Writ \nPetitioners  before  the  High  Court.  They  were  all  applicants  who \npossessed a Diploma from Private Universities/Institutions established \nby  statute  and  approved  by  the  University  Grants  Commission. \nTheir applications were found ineligible by the BTSC on the ground \nthat their institutions were not approved by the All-India Council of \n\nShashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1348 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nTechnical Education (‘AICTE’). Aggrieved, they approached the High \nCourt  seeking  the  quashing  of  Rule  9(1)(iii)  of  the  Rules  as  being \ninconsistent with other statutory provisions and judgement of the Apex \nCourt in Bharathidasan University & Anr. vs. AICTE & Ors. 2001 \n(8) SCC 676 wherein, on an interpretation of the provisions of the \nAll-India Council of Technical Education Act 1987, it was held that \nUniversities are excluded from the purview of technical institutions \nand are thus not required to obtain approvals from the AICTE before \nintroducing technical courses/programs. \n\n5.  The Writ Petitioners relied on public notice dated 09.02.2022 issued \nby the AICTE, to the VCs of all Central/State and Private Universities \nabout AICTE approval for 2022-23, stating as follows: \n\n“Dear Sir/Madam,\n\nlt  is  intimated  that  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  of  India  in \ncase of Bharathidasan University & Another Vs AICTE & \nOthers  has  interpreted  the  provisions  of  the AICTE Act \nand has held that university do not require prior approval \nof AICTE to commence a new department of course and \nprogrammes  in  technical  education.  Universities  have \nobligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms \nlaid  down  by  the AICTE.  For  the  purpose  of  ensuring \ncoordinated  and  integrated  development  of  technical \neducation  and  maintenance  of  standards, AICTE  may \ncause an inspection of the university, which has to be as \nper the provisions under relevant rules/regulations of the \nAICTE. Further, all affiliated institutions running technical \neducation programmes requires prior approval of AICTE. \nHowever, it has been observed that some of the Central \n/ State / Private Universities are taking partial approval of \nAICTE for some selected Technical Courses / Programmes, \nwhich is creating confusion among the stakeholders.\n\nTherefore,  AICTE  decided  that  no  partial  approval  of \ntechnical courses will be given to Universities in order to \navoid confusion among stakeholders.\n\nAccordingly, all universities are hereby informed that \neither they take full approval of all technical courses, \nor they can continue without approval of AICTE.” \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1349\n\n6. \n\nIt  is  relevant  to  note  that  the  stand  of  the  Writ  Petitioners  was \nreinforced  by  the AICTE  before  the  High  Court,  as  made  explicit \nby their Counter Affidavit dated 12.05.2022, which read as under: \n\n“8. That so far the statements made in paragraph no. 15 \nof the writ petition concern it is submitted that AICTE vide \nits  public  notification  for  approval  process  2021-22  had \ncategorically clarified that the central/state public private \nuniversities are not required to take approval of the AICTE \nfor  technical  programs  except  ODL  and  online  courses. \nThis position has also been confirmed in the public notice \nissued for approval process 2022-23…………..”\n\n7.  At  this  stage,  it  is  apposite  to  observe  that  prior  to  the  filing  of  \nCWJC No. 3411/2022, the High Court was already hearing several \nanalogous  writs  challenging  different  provisions  of  the  Rules  as \napplicable  to  the  selection  process  under  the  Advertisement. \nAccordingly,  vide  order  dated  02.05.2019  passed  in  CWJC  \nNo. 9887/2019, the BTSC was permitted to continue the selection \nprocess, with the results to be kept in a sealed cover, pending the \noutcome of the proceedings. This order was later modified vide order \ndated 06.12.2019 in CWJC No. 21651/2018 whereby the High Court \nallowed the selection process to be completed but directed that all \norders of appointments must state that appointments are subject to the \noutcome of the writ petitions and therefore, the selected candidates \ncannot claim any equity. \n\n8.  Accordingly,  on  02.04.2022,  the  BTSC  published  its  selection  list \nfor the posts advertised under the Advertisement (‘Select List’) and \nthe selected candidates were also allotted to specific departments. \nIn  compliance  with  the  aforenoted  interim  orders,  the  Select  List \nreproduced the directions given by the Court in order dated 06.12.2019 \nand explicitly stated that the Select List shall be affected in light of \nthe final order in the pending proceedings. \n\n9.  Thereafter,  in  a  separate  analogous  writ  proceeding  being  CWJC \nNo. 7312/2021, vide order dated 19.04.2022, Rule 4(A) of the Rules \nwhich  granted  40%  institutional  reservation  to  diploma  holders \nfrom  State-run  Polytechnic  Institutes  was  found  to  be  arbitrary \nand  unreasonable.  Consequently,  Select  list  prepared  in  terms  of \nRule 4(A) was set aside and the BTSC was directed to prepare a \nfresh  select  list  granting  40%  institutional  reservation  to  diploma \n\nShashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1350 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nholders from any polytechnic institute, recognized by the AICTE and \naffiliated  with  the  State  Board  of  Technical  Institutions,  Bihar  and \nlocated within the State. \n\n10.  Following  this,  the  BTSC  proceeded  to  finalise  the  merit  list  \nunder  the  Advertisement  but  were  directed  by  the  High  Court \nvide  order  01.12.2022  in  CWJC  No.  7761/2022  to  withhold  the \ndeclaration of results until leave is granted by the Court. A list was \nprepared  on  19.12.2022,  put  under  sealed  cover  and  permission \nof  the  Court  was  sought  by  filing  an  interlocutory  application  in \nCWJC No. 7761/2022 (the ‘Final Select List’). The hearing of the \napplication  was  adjourned  after  the Advocate  General  informed \nthe Court that the State Government was contemplating a review \nof the entire process. \n\n11.  On 25.01.2023, the Govt. of Bihar convened a high-level meeting of \nSecretaries from different works departments to consider the legal \nissues  emerging  from  the  numerous  pending  litigations  against \nthe Rules and the Advertisement and the consequent 4-year delay \nin  appointments.  A  decision  was  taken  inter  alia  to  cancel  the \nappointment process under the Advertisement and to initiate approval \nfor the amended Rules. \n\n12.  Once the decision dated 25.01.2023 was brought on record before \nthe  High  Court,  the  State  Govt.  was  permitted  to  implement  its \ndecisions  dated  25.01.2023  and  the  Court  concluded  that  nothing \nremained in the matter. Accordingly, CWJC No. 3411/2022 and all \nother analogous writs were disposed of in the following manner: \n\n“In  the  instant  writ  petitions,  petitioners  have  prayed  for \nthe following relief/reliefs:\n\ni. \n\nFor quashing of Rule 9(1)(ii) of Rules “Bihar Water \nResources Department Subordinate Engineering \n(Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, \n2017  contained  in  Notification  no.  3950  dated \n07.11.2017  prescribing  technical  qualification \neligibility  for  selection/appointment  to  the \ntechnical  post  in  the  State  of  Bihar,  as  being \ninconsistent  with  other  statutory  provisions,  in \ncontravention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s \njudgment and is violative of fundamental rights \nguaranteed under the Constitution of India. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1351\n\nii. \n\nFor declaration of the aforesaid rules as being \nultra  vires  to  the  Constitution  of  India  so  far \namendment of Rule -9(1)(iii) is concerned. \n\niii.  For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner \n\nis found entitled to.\n\n2. Matter is relating to selection and appointment to the \npost  of  Junior  Engineer.  In  this  regard,  advertisement \nwas  issued  on  08.03.2019.  From  time  to  time,  matter \nwas  taken  up  for  hearing  and  during  the  course  of  the \nhearing  we  have  noticed  certain  errors  in  the  relevant \nRules governing the post of Junior Engineer. Ultimately, \nState  Government  has  taken  a  decision  to  cancel  the \nprocess of recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer with \nreference  to  advertisement  issued  on  08.03.2019  and \nproposed to issue a fresh or amendment of Rules while \nrectifying certain errors which have crept in the existing \nRules. To that effect, supplementary counter affidavit has \nbeen filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 while enclosing \ndecision  dated  25.01.2023  vide  Annexure  –  A  to  the \nsupplementary  counter  affidavit.  Perusal  of  the  same, \nit  is  evident  that  certain  errors  which  have  crept  in  the \nRules would be carried in amendment of relevant Rules \netc. The proposed action of the State respondents reads \nas under: \n\n‘4.  After  due  deliberations  on  all  aspects,  it  was \nresolved that:\n\na. \n\nIn view of the legal wrangle crept in presently, \nthe  Recruitment  process  emanating  from  the \nAdvertisement No.01/2019 notified by the Bihar \nTechnical Service Commission be cancelled. \n\nb.  The Department which earlier send its requisition \nfor  appointment  to  the  Commission  shall \nwithdraw  their  respective  requisition  from  the \nBihar Technical Service Commission and such \nDepartment  would  send  their  such  requisition \nafresh  only  after  framing  of  new  Recruitment \nRules. \n\nShashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1352 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nc.  Action  be  also  initiated  for  cancellation  of  the \nJunior  Engineer  Recruitments  Rules  which \nare presently in vogue in various departments \nand  thereafter,  the  amended  Junior  Engineer \nRecruitments Rules be framed. \n\nd.  Steps be taken as to the approval of the Council \nof Ministers be accorded to the amended junior \nEngineer Recruitment Rules for the appointment \nof the Junior Engineer.’ \n\n3.  In  the  light  of  these  new  developments,  the  present \npetitions  do  not  survive  for  consideration. Accordingly, \nState is permitted to carry out necessary amendment and \nproceed afresh to advertise for the post of Junior Engineer. \n\n4. From the date of last advertisement till date, almost four \nyears have elapsed, therefore, such of those candidates \nwho are likely to be over-aged with reference to ensuing \nadvertisement,  for  such  of  those  candidates  (who  are \napplicants to the advertisement dated 08.03.2019), State \nGovernment must make a provision in the proposed \namendment insofar as giving age relaxation as a one \ntime measure. The above exercise shall be completed \nwithin a period of four months from the date of receipt \nof this order. \n\n5. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.\n\n6. At this stage, learned counsel for one of the contesting \nrespondent  submitted  that  liberty  may  be  reserved  to \nchallenge  the  proposed  amendment.  Such  liberty  is  not \nnecessary  for  the  reasons  that  as  and  when  Rules  or \namended  rules  were  issued  afresh,  it  would  be  a  fresh \ncause of action to the respective parties.” \n\n13.  Learned Senior Counsels for the Appellants, Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, Mr. \nRanjit Kumar and Ms. Meenakshi Arora urged before this Court that \nat the outset, the Writ Petitioners, having knowingly participated in \nthe selection process under the Advertisement were bound by the \ndoctrine of acquiescence and therefore, could not have challenged the \neligibility criteria post-facto. Reliance is placed on Punjab National \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1353\n\nBank vs. Anit Kumar Das (2021) 12 SCC 80 and The Chairman \nSBI & Anr. vs. M.J. James (2022) 2 SCC 301. \n\n14.  The  learned  counsels  for  the Appellants  also  contended  that  the \ncancellation  of  the  entire  selection  process  after  its  completion \nand preparation of the Final Select List, is unjustified and amounts \nto  changing  the  rules  of  the  game  after  the  declaration  of  results, \nwhich  is  impermissible.  Reliance  is  placed  on  K.  Manjusree  vs. \nState of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512. It is argued \nthat the Appellants, who emerged successful after the due process \nof selection which was carried out as per the Advertisement, have \na vested right to be appointed and are instead being made to suffer \nthough no fault of their own.\n\n15.  They  further  contended  that  the  decision  taken  by  the  State \nGovernment and approved by the High Court amounts to arbitrary \naction  as  it  fails  to  specify  the  concern/anomaly  with  Rule  9(1)(iii) \nwhich necessitated the cancellation of the entire process. \n\n16.  Learned Counsel for the Private Respondents i.e., the Writ Petitioners \nbefore  the  High  Court  also  contended  that  the  cancellation  of  the \nentire selection process, at such a tardy stage would seriously impact \ntheir interests. They argue that as per the stand of the AICTE before \nthe High Court, their applications were eligible and should thus be \nreconsidered along with the applications of the Appellants. \n\n17.  Learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the  State,  Mr.  Patwalia  vehemently \ncontends  that  the  State  was  well  within  its  domain  to  scrap  the \nselection  process  considering  the  numerous  legal  issues  that \ncropped up concerning the previously applicable Rules. It is brought \nto  the  notice  of  this  Court  that  in  furtherance  of  its  decisions,  as \napproved by the Impugned Order, the Govt. of Bihar has repealed \nthe  existing  Rules  and  notified  the  Bihar  Subordinate  Engineering \n(Civil/Mechanical/Electrical)  Cadre  Rules,  2023  (the  ‘New  Rules’) \nvide Notification No. 1174 dated 07.03.2023. In compliance with the \ndirections of the High Court, appropriate provisions for the grant of \none-time age relaxations have also been made under Rule 8(2) of \nthe New Rules. Further, the BTSC has cancelled the Advertisement \nvide  notice  dated  10.04.2023  and  fresh  requisitions  have  been \nsent  by  the  Water  Resources  Department  to  the  BTSC  vide  letter \ndated 21.03.2023 for selection against 2252 vacant posts for Junior \nEngineers in that department. \n\nShashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1354 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n18.  Mr.  Patwalia  further  contends  that  the  completion  of  the  selection \nprocess under the Advertisement, resulting in the Select List and in \nthe Final Select List was consistently carried out with the rider that \nthe appointments would be subject to the outcome of the pending \nlitigation. He argues that while the Select List was partially set aside \nby  the  High  Court  vide  order  dated  19.04.2022,  the  Final  Select \nList  was  neither  considered  by  the  High  Court  nor  published,  and \ntherefore, no right to appointment vests with the Appellants, making \nany claim to equity untenable. \n\n19.  At  this  stage,  it  is  pertinent  to  note  that  while  issuing  notice,  this \nCourt  vide  order  dated  24.04.2023  directed  the  maintenance  of \nstatus quo which has persisted till date. As per the most recent status \nreport by the State, nearly 9,187 posts of Junior Engineers remain \nvacant, drastically affecting the day-to-day functioning of the State. \nAs  retirements  are  ongoing,  the  working  strength  is  continuously \ndecreasing and is currently at 11.7%. In recognition of the peculiar \nfacts and circumstances of this case, Mr. Patwalia has fairly stated \nbefore this Court that the State will abide by any appropriate direction \ngiven by the Court. \n\n20.  We  have  heard  Learned  Counsel  for  the  parties  and  perused  the \n\nrecord. \n\n21.  As  evidenced  above,  the  present  case  has  a  chequered  history. \nBefore the Advertisement was released, an amendment was brought \nto the Rules in 2017, more particularly to Rule 9, which restricted the \neligibility criteria only to those candidates who possessed a Diploma \nfrom  an  institute  approved  by  the AICTE.  This  amendment  was \nprima facie contrary to the decision of this Court in Bharathidasan \nUniversity  (supra)  which  is  solidified  by  the  stand  of  the AICTE \nbefore this Court and their public notice dated 19.02.2022. However, \ndespite  this  infraction,  the  Advertisement  contained  the  same \nrestriction,  arbitrarily  disqualifying  persons  like  the  Writ  Petitioners \nfrom the selection process. \n\n22.  Thereafter, the first Select List that was prepared was partly set aside \nvide order dated 19.04.2022 in CWJC No. 7312/2021 and the BTSC \nwas directed to prepare a fresh Select List as under: \n\n“Accordingly,  appointments  made  to  extent  in  terms  of \nRule 4(A) of amending Rules, 2017 are set aside and the \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1355\n\nBihar State Technical Selection Commission is directed to \nprepare afresh select/merit list granting 40% institutional \nreservation to all the diploma holders, who have obtained \ntheir  diploma  certificate  from  any  polytechnic  institutes \nrecognized  by AICTU  and  affiliated  by  State  Board  of \nTechnical  Institutions,  Bihar,  Patna  within  the  State  of \nBihar.”\n\n23.  Consequently,  the  Select  List  prepared  on  02.04.2022  was  \nimpliedly  set  aside  and  a  Final  Select  List  was  prepared  by  the \nBTSC  in  compliance  with  order  dated  19.04.2022  but  the  same \nwas  not  released  as  ordered  by  the  Patna  High  Court  vide  order \ndated  01.12.2022  in  another  analogous  writ  proceeding  being  \nCWJC No. 7761/2022 as under: \n\n“…Process  of  selection  and  appointment,  in  terms  of \nadvertisement dated 8.9.2019, is nearing completion. \n\nUnder these circumstances, as prayed for, we grant two \nweeks’ time to file reply. \n\nIn the meanwhile, process of selection may carry on, \nbut the result shall not be declared without leave of \nthe Court.”\n\n24. \n\nIt  is  pertinent  to  note  that  the  order  dated  19.04.2022  passed  in \nCWJC No. 7312 of 2021 does not appear to have been challenged \nfurther  and  has  attained  finality.  It  is  stated  by  the  BTSC  that  the \nFinal Select List was prepared and kept under sealed cover. While \nan  application  seeking  release  of  the  list  was  pending  before  the \nHigh Court, the Writ Petition was withdrawn. \n\n25.  During the present proceedings, vide order dated 10.09.2024, this \nCourt  sought  information  regarding  the  Final  Select  List  from  the \nState  Government  and  the  same  was  produced  before  this  Court \nin sealed cover. \n\n26.  Presently,  despite  the  preparation  of  the  Final  Select  List  which \nsignals  the  conclusion  of  the  appointment  process,  the  State \nGovernment  seeks  to  scrap  the  entire  process  and  undertake  a \nfresh appointment process under the New Rules. In the considered \nopinion of this Court, this amounts to effectively changing the rules \nof the game after the game was played which is impermissible and \n\nShashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1356 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\ndeprives  the  candidates  of  their  legitimate  right  of  consideration \nunder the previous Rules. \n\n27.  The  High  Court  in  the  impugned  order  has  abruptly  and  without \nassigning reasons and without adjudicating any issues involved in \nthe  writ  petitions,  disposed  of  the  same,  recording  the  statement \nmade by the learned counsel for the State, and permitted the State \nto amend Rules in question. Since, the entire recruitment process \nwas  concluded  as  per  the  extant  Rules  till  the  selection  list  was \ndeclared on 02.04.2022, which has not been specifically set aside \nby the High Court, and since the AICTE has also continued its stand \nthat  its  approval  is  not  necessary  for  the  private  institutions,  and \nsince the order dated 19.04.2022 passed in CWJC No. 7312/2021 \nhas attained finality, in our opinion, the interest of justice would be \nmet  if  the  State/Commission  is  directed  to  prepare  a  fresh  select \nlist of meritorious candidates in respect of the Advertisement dated \n08.03.2019,  keeping  in  view  the  above  facts  and  keeping  in  view \nthat  no  appointments  to  the  post  of  Junior  Engineer  (Civil)  have \nbeen made since last more than ten years. Hence, it is required to \nbe directed that a fresh selection list for the vacancies advertised in \nthe Advertisement dated 08.03.2019 be prepared of the meritorious \ncandidates, considering the above observations and in compliance \nwith the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the High Court in CWJC \nNo. 7312/2021 as expedient as possible and preferably within three \nmonths of this order.\n\n28. \n\nIn this regard, the field is held by the three-judge bench decision of this \nCourt in K. Manjusree (supra) wherein the Court, relying on previous \ndecisions, explicitly held that introducing new requirements into the \nselection process after the entire selection process was completed \namounted  to  changing  the  rules  of  the  game  after  the  game  was \nplayed. Relevant portions of the judgement are reproduced as under: \n\n“27. But what could not have been done was the second \nchange, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks \nfor  the  interview.  The  minimum  marks  for  interview  had \nnever  been  adopted  by  the Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court \nearlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade \nII). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative \nCommittee  merely  adopted  the  previous  procedure  in \nvogue. The  previous  procedure  as  stated  above  was  to \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1357\n\napply  minimum  marks  only  for  written  examination  and \nnot  for  the  oral  examination.  We  have  referred  to  the \nproper  interpretation  of  the  earlier  Resolutions  dated   \n24-7-2001 and 21-2-2002 and held that what was adopted on  \n30-11-2004 was only minimum marks for written examination \nand not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the \nrequirement  of  minimum  marks  for  interview,  after \nthe  entire  selection  process  (consisting  of  written \nexamination  and  interview)  was  completed,  would \namount  to  changing  the  rules  of  the  game  after  the \ngame was played which is clearly impermissible. We \nare fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It \nis sufficient to refer to three of them — P.K. Ramachandra \nIyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S) \n214], Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 \nSCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] and Durgacharan Misra \nv. State of Orissa [(1987) 4 SCC 646 : 1988 SCC (L&S) \n36 : (1987) 5 ATC 148] \n\n32.  In  Maharashtra  SRTC  v.  Rajendra  Bhimrao  Mandve \n[(2001)  10  SCC  51  :  2002  SCC  (L&S)  720]  this  Court \nobserved that “the rules of the game, meaning thereby, \nthat the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the \nauthorities concerned in the middle or after the process \nof selection has commenced”. In this case the position \nis much more serious. Here, not only the rules of the \ngame were changed, but they were changed after the \ngame had been played and the results of the game were \nbeing awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible.”\n\n29.  Therefore,  in  light  of  the  aforenoted  position,  the  State  action  of \nscrapping the entire selection process is not permissible. In view of \nthe  peculiar  circumstances  of  this  case,  particularly  the  prolonged \npendency  leading  to  huge  number  of  vacant  posts  that  hinder  the \nGovernment’s functioning, this Court finds it appropriate for the State/\nBTSC to proceed with the Fresh Select List submitted in compliance \nwith the order dated 19.04.2022 in CWJC No. 7312/2021 which has \nattained finality, as also taking into consideration as far as possible, \nthe  interest  of  the  candidates  who  were  found  successful.  Hence, \nthe Fresh Select List must be appropriately revised in the following \nmanner:\n\nShashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1358 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n(i)  The  Fresh  Select  List  be  prepared  in  view  of  order  dated \n19.04.2022 passed by the High Court in CWJC No. 7312/2021.\n\n(ii)  The Fresh Select List shall also include as far as possible those \nmeritorious  candidates  who  were  otherwise  eligible  but  were \ndeclared ineligible solely on account of the 2017 amendment to \nthe Rules i.e., on account of their institute not being recognised \nby the AICTE, and all similarly placed successful candidates. \n\n(iii)  The BTSC is directed to prepare the Revised Select List within \n3 months of this Order and the State Government is directed to \nact upon the Revised Select List submitted by the Commission \nwithin a period of 30 days thereafter. \n\n30.  Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed of with the aforenoted \n\ndirections.\n\nResult of the case: Appeals disposed of.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f"}