Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal has held that executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) of the Constitution cannot override or annul recruitment undertaken under a statutory regime. Allowing a batch of civil appeals, the Court set aside a common judgment of the High Court of Tripura which had declined to interfere with State action, quashed memorandums that placed recruitment of Enrolled Followers in the Tripura State Rifles in abeyance and later cancelled it, and directed that the process be completed under the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 and the Tripura State Rifles (Recruitment) Rules, 1984. The Court mandated finalization of the selection, subject to statutory verification, within a defined time-frame.

The appeals arose from the recruitment of Enrolled Followers in the Tripura State Rifles Battalions. Recruitment to this cadre is governed by the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 (TSR Act) and the Tripura State Rifles (Recruitment) Rules, 1984 (TSR Rules). The statutory framework prescribes the structure of the force, ranks, appointing authorities, and conditions of service. The category of Enrolled Followers encompasses non-gazetted Class IV roles including cook, masalchi, water-carrier, mess-servant, ward-boy, washerman, cobbler, barber, sweeper, helper, and cleaner.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds TS-Transco’s Fresh Recruitment Notification | Cancelling 2011–12 AP-Transco Selection Process Not Arbitrary, Candidates Had No Vested Right to Appointment

Under Rule 24 of the TSR Rules, candidates must be aged between 18 and 21 years, physically fit, able to read and write a passage in their mother tongue, proficient in their respective trade, and required to pass such tests as may be specified by the Inspector General of Police, later substituted with the Director General of Police. The statutory design therefore contemplated that recruitment be conducted in accordance with prescribed tests approved by the competent authority.

In November 2014, the Police Headquarters (PHQ) of Tripura communicated 506 vacancies of Enrolled Followers to the Home Department. The vacancies were divided between an inside-state quota and an outside-state quota. On 30 July 2015, the Home Department conveyed approval to commence the recruitment. On 18 June 2016, approval was granted to constitute Recruitment Boards for both quotas.

For the inside-state quota, a draft recruitment programme was approved by the Director General of Police on 7 September 2016. An advertisement issued on 9 September 2016 called for filling 372 posts. Recruitment rallies were conducted across Tripura between 24 September 2016 and 7 December 2016. The Board submitted proceedings to PHQ on 23 April 2017, and these were forwarded to the Home Department on 12 May 2017 for approval. On 29 May 2017, the Home Department accorded approval to commence character verification. On 9 June 2017, PHQ instructed the 2nd Battalion to complete steps toward issuing appointment orders.

For the outside-state quota, a parallel process was undertaken. The draft recruitment programme was approved on 8 September 2016, and an advertisement issued on 14 September 2016 sought to fill 134 posts. Rallies were conducted between 23 October 2016 and 15 November 2016 at Kotdwar, Ranchi, and Visakhapatnam. The Recruitment Board submitted proceedings on 20 December 2016, which PHQ forwarded to the Home Department on 21 December 2016. Approval was granted on 30 December 2016, and instructions to complete steps toward appointment were issued on 9 June 2017.

By mid-2017, the recruitment process had reached the stage of character verification. On 13 July 2017, the Commandant of the 2nd Battalion sought additional time to complete verification. On 26 July 2017, the Director General granted three months and directed expeditious completion. On 17 October 2017, the Commandant requested that offers of appointment be withheld until verification reports were received, noting that forged certificates had been detected. On 31 October 2017, the Law Department advised that offers be issued only after verification was complete, and delayed cases be excluded. On 15 November 2017, the Director General approved this course of action.

While verification was underway, a change of government occurred following elections in March 2018. On 14 March 2018, the General Administration (P&T) Department issued Memorandum No. F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18, placing all ongoing recruitment and selection processes in abeyance, with an exception for processes mandated by specific court orders.

On 5 June 2018, the Government notified a New Recruitment Policy (NRP). The NRP abolished interviews for Group-D posts, made written tests the principal method of assessment, imposed caps on interview weightage for higher categories, and proposed restructuring of recruitment institutions.

On 20 August 2018, Memorandum No. F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18 superseded the abeyance memorandum and cancelled all ongoing recruitments, save for the Tripura Judicial Service Grade-III process. It directed that all appointments must follow the NRP and granted one-time age relaxation to candidates who had participated in cancelled processes. Departments were instructed to comply strictly with the new framework.

Aggrieved candidates challenged both memorandums before the High Court of Tripura. They contended that recruitment commenced under the TSR Act and Rules could not be annulled by subsequent executive instructions. The High Court dismissed their petitions on 3 October 2019, holding that no indefeasible right accrued until issuance of appointment letters, that the NRP was a policy decision in public interest, and that principles of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation did not apply.

The unsuccessful candidates preferred civil appeals before the Supreme Court, contending that:

1. Recruitment under statutory rules could not be set aside by executive policy.

2. The NRP was prospective and could not apply to ongoing processes.

3. Legitimate expectation arose in favour of candidates who had successfully undergone statutory recruitment steps.

The State opposed, asserting that the decision was taken in larger public interest to ensure transparency and fairness, and that participation in recruitment conferred no vested right to appointment.

The issues framed before the Supreme Court were: (i) whether the abeyance and cancellation memorandums cancelling a statutory recruitment were legally valid; (ii) whether applying the NRP to an ongoing recruitment amounted to altering the rules of the game after commencement; and (iii) whether legitimate expectation arose in favour of the candidates.

The Division Bench examined the constitutional, statutory, and factual position. It recorded: “NRP dated 05.06.2018 is an executive instruction of the State issued under Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India… It did not have a statutory and legislative backing, rather it was a decision taken solely in the exercise of the power vested in the executive.”

On the status of the recruitment, the Court noted: “Much prior to the issuance of the Abeyance Memorandum dated 14.03.2018, NRP dated 05.06.2018 and Cancellation Memorandum dated 20.08.2018, the recruitment process for the post of Enrolled Followers… had reached the stage of preparation of the final merit list after completion of the recruitment process as specified.”

On the interface between statute and executive policy, the Bench observed: “Executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India cannot override the act done under the statute and the rules made thereunder. The executive instructions can only supplement the provisions of the act and the rules in case of any ambiguity or if gaps are to be filled but such executive instructions cannot supplant the specific provisions which already occupy the field.”

Considering the State’s plea of public interest, the Court stated: “Apart from this, there is no mention even in the NRP as to how larger public interest can be achieved by abolition of interviews for Group-D posts such as Enrolled Followers. It is difficult to see how such larger public interest can be achieved… where the recruitment process… was at a significantly advanced stage and interviews had already been conducted.”

On retrospective application, the Court held: “The very application of NRP to the ongoing process is illegal on three counts – firstly, because it is an executive instruction and in the absence of an amendment in the TSR Act and TSR Rules, the recruitment procedure could not have been changed. Secondly, because the application of NRP to the ongoing recruitment process would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game has already begun. Thirdly, as per clause (2) of NRP, the recommendation to abolish interviews for Group-D posts would only apply prospectively and it would not mean to apply in the recruitment process wherein the interview has already taken place.”

The Court further recorded: “The recruitment process cannot be left at the whims and fancies of the State to interfere, through executive orders, without adhering to the principles of consistency and predictability, which are warranted by the rule of law and are pillars of non-arbitrariness.”

Referring to the stage of the process, the Court observed that the Director General of Police had approved the combination of tests under Rule 24(e), interviews had already been conducted, and merit lists prepared. It concluded that applying a later policy abolishing interviews amounted to retrospectively altering statutory procedure.

On legitimate expectation, the Court cited precedent and held: “The candidates who have taken part in a recruitment process conducted by a public authority have a legitimate expectation that the selection process will be conducted fairly and without arbitrariness. Consistency and predictability are important aspects of non-arbitrariness, and the rule of law obligates the State to only take decisions which are rooted in fairness and equality.”

Also Read: Orissa High Court Directs Reconsideration of Life Convict’s Premature Release | Holds State Sentence Review Board Must Assess Under Applicable Policies and Avoid Arbitrary Denial

The Supreme Court allowed the batch of civil appeals. It set aside the High Court’s common judgment dated 3 October 2019 in so far as it pertained to Enrolled Followers’ recruitment in the Tripura State Rifles. It quashed Memorandum dated 14 March 2018 and Memorandum dated 20 August 2018 to the extent that they applied to this recruitment.

The Court directed: “It is further directed that the recruitment process for the post of Enrolled Followers in Tripura State Rifles shall now be finalized and completed by the Respondents following the provisions of TSR Act and TSR Rules within a period of two months.”

The Court clarified that the appellants would be entitled to participate in the recruitment process in accordance with the merit list already prepared. It directed that appointments be issued subject to character and antecedent verification in accordance with law.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR; Dr. Lokendra Malik, Adv.; Mr. Ajit Pandey, Adv.; Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR; Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.; Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.; Ms. Sanya Minhas, Adv.; Mr. B. Venkatraman, Adv.; Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra, AOR; Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR.

For the Respondents: Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR; Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.; Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.; Ms. Sanya Minhas, Adv.; Mr. B. Venkatraman, Adv.; Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Zulfiker Ali P. S, AOR; Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv.; Ms. Syed Nazarat Fatima, Adv.; Mr. J. Karan Malhotra, Adv.; Mr. Pranab Prakash, AOR.

Case Title: Partha Das & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors.; Sujan Roy & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1049

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 4426–4466 of 2023; Civil Appeal Nos. 4473–4479 of 2023

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari; Justice Rajesh Bindal