Selection Criteria Cannot Be Altered After Final Evaluation Stage; Supreme Court Dismisses J&K Services Selection Board Appeal On Post-Interview Change In Forester Recruitment Criteria
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, reaffirming that recruitment criteria cannot be altered after completion of the final stage of assessment, dismissed the appeal filed by the state recruitment board against a High Court direction to accommodate candidates disadvantaged by a post-interview change in the evaluation scheme for Forester posts in the Jammu Division. The Court upheld the finding that the Board’s decision to split the weightage for the B.Sc. Forestry qualification into separate three-year and four-year categories after interviews had concluded impermissibly undermined the eligibility of candidates who already met the notified requirements. It consequently left undisturbed the High Court’s direction to adjust such candidates, including by creation of additional posts where necessary.
The Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board issued a recruitment notification inviting applications, inter alia, for 38 posts of Forester in the Jammu Division. The prescribed qualifications included 10+2 with science, specified height, and a physical endurance test. As there were no specific rules governing selection, the Board framed an evaluation scheme for 100 marks, allocating 25 marks as weightage for a B.Sc. Forestry degree.
After conducting interviews of shortlisted candidates, the Board modified the scheme by bifurcating the B.Sc. Forestry degree into separate categories for three-year and four-year courses, awarding 20 and 25 marks respectively. On this basis, the select list was prepared. Candidates holding three-year B.Sc. Forestry degrees challenged the process before the High Court, contending that the evaluation criteria could not be altered after completion of interviews and that both courses were recognized while all candidates already met the minimum eligibility.
The writ petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge, leading to intra-court appeals. The Division Bench allowed the appeals, holding that the criteria should not have been changed at that stage and issuing directions for consideration and adjustment of affected candidates. The Board’s appeal before the Supreme Court argued that only the mode of evaluation was changed, justified by the longer duration of the four-year course and the absence of available posts; the respondents relied on this Court’s decisions in K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash Pathak to oppose any post-interview alteration of criteria.
The Court first recorded the factual position that "It is not in dispute that weightage points allotted to a B.Sc. Degree in Forestry was 25 points at the stage when the candidates participated in the selection process, and this was altered only after interviews were held, that is, when all the stages of participation by a candidate in the selection process were over."
Referring to precedent, the Bench noted that "In Manjushree (supra), this Court did not approve of prescribing minimum cut-off marks in the interview for selection after the interviews were over." It added that "This issue was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) and approved."
While accepting that recruitment authorities have latitude, the Court stated: "We acknowledge that recruiting bodies could devise an appropriate procedure for successfully concluding the recruitment process provided the procedure adopted has been transparent, non-discriminatory/ non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought be achieved."
Applying these principles, the Court observed that "Here, we find that the evaluation procedure was altered after the interviews were over, candidates had completed their participation in the selection process, and most importantly, it was altered on representation of candidates." It further held that "Such alteration, in our opinion, cannot be termed transparent and does not have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved in as much as the academic qualification required for the post was barely 10+2 with science and stress was more on physical attributes of a candidate including viva voce."
On that basis, the Court concluded that "Therefore, a change in the selection criteria, after interviews were held, in our view, was rightly not countenanced by the Division Bench of the High Court."
The Court directed that: “The respondents, if ousted, would be prevented from seeking any other Govt. job on account of age restrictions. Even otherwise, the respondents would then not only be deprived of their social status, which they have acquired in the interregnum, the same would also affect their families harshly. Such of the appellants, who make up the merit shall, in that case, be considered against any of the vacant post of Foresters or if there are none then additional posts be created for their adjustment with the benefits as have been directed to be given in the preceding paragraph. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from today.”
“Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. G.M.kawoosa, Adv.; Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR; Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.; Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR; Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.; Mr. Sankalp Narain, Adv.; Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv.
Case Title: J AND K SERVICE SELECTION BOARD & ANR. VERSUS SUDESH KUMAR & ORS.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No.10932/2025
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
