Rules Cannot Change After Selection: Calcutta HC Upholds Warder Recruitment List

The Calcutta High Court has upheld a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order directing the appointment of candidates to the post of Warder (Male) in the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, holding that the authorities could not introduce a minimum qualifying marks criterion after completion of the recruitment process.

The Court ruled that such post facto changes to selection criteria are impermissible in law and violate settled principles governing public recruitment.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India and others, affirming the Tribunal’s decision which had quashed a corrigendum deleting selected candidates from the final list.

The Bench held that there was no infirmity in the Tribunal’s reasoning and directed that the selection list published on 19.10.2024 be restored, with consequential steps to process appointments.

The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated through a vacancy notice dated 29.04.2023 for filling 28 posts of Warder (Male) in the District Jail under the Andaman & Nicobar Administration.

The eligibility criteria prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules required candidates to have passed Class X, possess basic literacy in Hindi or English, and meet prescribed physical standards.

The recruitment process included a written examination followed by verification of documents and a trade test.

After completion of the selection process, a list of selected candidates was published on 19.10.2024, which included the names of the respondents. However, shortly thereafter, by way of a corrigendum dated 24.10.2024, the authorities drastically reduced the list from 12 candidates to just one.

The deletion of names was based on a Standing Order dated 12.06.2023 prescribing a minimum qualifying mark of 40% in the written examination, a requirement that had not been specified in the original vacancy notification.

Aggrieved by their exclusion, the affected candidates approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, contending that the introduction of a minimum marks requirement after the commencement of the recruitment process amounted to changing the “rules of the game” midstream.

They argued that neither the recruitment rules nor the vacancy notice prescribed any such qualifying threshold and that the written examination was only intended to prepare a merit list.

The Tribunal accepted these contentions and quashed the corrigendum, directing the authorities to proceed with appointments based on the original select list.

It held that the recruitment process must be governed strictly by the terms notified at its inception and that any subsequent alteration of criteria would be legally unsustainable.

Before the High Court, the Union of India argued that the administration had reserved the right to fix cut-off marks and that the Standing Order prescribing 40% qualifying marks was within its discretion.

It was further submitted that candidates who failed to meet this threshold were ineligible for appointment.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court examined the vacancy notice and found that while it permitted the authorities to fix cut-offs, it did not authorize the introduction of such criteria after the selection process had concluded.

The Court emphasized that the recruitment process had been conducted entirely on the basis that no minimum qualifying marks were required in the written examination.

The Bench noted that the respondents had successfully participated in all stages of the selection process, including the trade test, and had been duly included in the final select list.

The subsequent deletion of their names, based on a criterion introduced after their selection, was held to be arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles.

Importantly, the Court observed that the Standing Order relied upon by the authorities emanated from the Prison Department, which was merely the user department and not directly involved in conducting the recruitment process.

The recruitment had been carried out by the Administration Department and the Staff Selection Commission, and therefore, reliance on a post hoc instruction from the user department was misplaced.

The Court further held that the authorities had not only altered the criteria during the recruitment process but had done so after its completion, which is impermissible in law. Reiterating settled jurisprudence, including principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Bench observed that selection norms must be fixed prior to the commencement of the process and cannot be modified thereafter to the detriment of candidates.

Finding that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated both the facts and the law, the High Court declined to interfere with its order.

It held that the Tribunal’s reasoning was logical, well-founded, and consistent with binding precedents governing public employment.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the direction to restore the original select list and process appointments was upheld.

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Shri Denis Mathew & Ors.

Bench: Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

Date of Judgment: 27.03.2026