Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment discussing the rules of the recruitment process. 
• This was delivered by a 5-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj Misra. 

Facts  

• The Rajasthan High Court invited applications for 13 Translator posts with qualifications including three years of experience and a postgraduate degree in English Literature. 
• Preference was to be given to law graduates. 
• The recruitment was governed by "The Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002" (2002 Rules). 
• The rules prescribed qualifications, a competitive exam, and interview processes for selection. 
• In 2004, an amendment removed the earlier stipulation of securing minimum qualifying marks for eligibility. 
• Further amendments in 2009 emphasized postgraduate qualifications in English Literature. 
• The written examination held in December 2009 resulted in only three candidates meeting a post-exam 75% cutoff mark imposed by the Chief Justice. 
• The rationale was ensuring high standards for judicial appointments. 
• Unsuccessful candidates contended that setting the 75% benchmark post hoc amounted to "changing the rules of the game." 
• The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether procedural rules can be altered after the recruitment process begins? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court held that a candidate placed in the select list does not have an indefeasible right to be appointed, even if vacancies are available. 
• The State must provide justification for its decision not to fill up vacancies when appointments are challenged. 
• The State or its instrumentalities cannot arbitrarily deny appointments to selected candidates. 
• In cases of denial of appointment, the State has the burden of justifying its decision not to appoint a candidate from the select list. 
• If vacancies are available, the State or its instrumentalities must not arbitrarily deny appointment to candidates within the zone of consideration in the select list. 
• The State or its instrumentalities may choose not to fill vacancies for bona fide reasons. 
• The eligibility criteria or rules governing the recruitment process cannot be altered midway through the selection process unless explicitly permitted by the rules. 

Conclusion 

This is the landmark judgment where the Supreme Court has held that the "rules of the game" for a selection process cannot be altered once the recruitment process has commenced, unless explicitly allowed by the applicable rules.