Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Partha Das vs The State Of Tripura on 28 August, 2025
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari
2025 INSC 1049 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4426-4466 OF 2023
PARTHA DAS & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. ....RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4473-4479 OF 2023
SUJAN ROY & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. ....RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
J.K. Maheshwari J.
Signature Not Verified
1. Questioning the validity of the judgment dated 03.10.2019
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.08.28
20:56:49 IST
Reason:
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura commonly
1
passed in a batch of writ petitions, two set of Civil Appeal Nos.
4426-4466 of 2023 and 4473-4479 of 2023 have been filed. The
issue involved in these appeals relates to cancellation of the
ongoing recruitment process of ‘Enrolled Followers’ midway on
the pretext of a policy decision of the State Government.
2. The subject matter in dispute is appointment on the post of
Enrolled Followers in Tripura State Rifles Battalions. In the State
of Tripura, the recruitment of Enrolled Followers is governed by
the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “TSR
Act”) read with the Tripura State Rifles (Recruitment) Rules,
1984 (hereinafter referred to as “TSR Rules”). For the sake of
convenience, some pertinent provisions of the TSR Act, which
govern the recruitment of Enrolled Followers, are referred.
2.1 Section 3(s) defines ‘the Rifles’ as Tripura State Rifles.
Section 3(g) defines ‘Enrolled Followers’ as any person appointed
to do the work of a cook, masalchi, water-carrier, mess-servant,
ward-boy, washerman, cobbler, barber, sweeper, helper or cleaner.
Section 4 specifies that the State Government shall constitute a
force called Tripura State Rifles and Section 5 grants power to the
Commandant to appoint Enrolled Followers. As per Section 9, the
2
State Government is vested with the power of superintendence
and control over Tripura State Rifles, and that its administration
shall be done by the State Government as per the provisions of
TSR Act and the rules made thereunder through Director General
of Police, Inspector General or such Deputy Inspector General or
other officers as the State Government may so appoint. Section
22 confers power on the State Government to make rules to carry
out the purpose of the TSR Act. Thus, the TSR Act is a complete
code in itself which provides for constitution of and recruitment
in Tripura State Rifles and confers power on the State
Government to frame rules.
3. In furtherance of the power under Section 22 of TSR Act,
State Government enacted TSR Rules, wherein Rule 3 talks about
powers of State Government and certain officers, i.e., Inspector
General, the Deputy Inspector-General and Commandant of
Tripura State Rifles. Further, it confers powers on Inspector
General, the Deputy Inspector-General and Commandant to
supervise and control Tripura State Rifles. Rule 6 categorises
Tripura State Rifles into ranks wherein Enrolled Followers are
defined at serial no. xii as non-gazetted, class-IV. Rule 8
prescribes the method of appointment of the members of the
3
Rifles and the appointing authority. The said rule is relevant,
therefore, reproduced hereunder:
“8. Method of appointment of the members of the Rifles:
(1) The members of the Rifles shall be appointed by one or
more of the following methods-
(a) Direct recruitment;
(b) Promotion;
(c) Re-employment of ex-services or ex-Central Police
Organization personnel; and
(d) Deputation or transfer of the personnel of Armed
Forces of the Union or Central Police Organization or
Police Organization of any State.
(2) 75% of direct recruitment in all ranks shall be make from
within Tripura and the remaining 25% of such direct
recruitment shall be made from states and Union
Territories outside Tripura.
(3) The appointing authorities for members of the Rifles shall
be as follows:
Sl. No. Rank Authority competent
(i) Subedar Inspector-General
(ii) Naib Subedar Commandant
(iii) Havildar Commandant
(iv) Naik Commandant
(v) Lance Naik Commandant
(vi) Riflemen Commandant
(vii) Enrolled Followers Commandant
4. The present matter relates to recruitment to the post of
Enrolled Followers, for which Rule 24 is also relevant, the same is
reproduced hereunder:
“24. Recruitment Rules for the Posts of Enrolled
Followers:
4
Recruitment to the post of enrolled followers shall be made
from amongst person who satisfy the following conditions,
namely-
(a) should be in the age group of 18-21 years as on 1st
day of July of the year in which advertisement for
recruitment is made;
(b) should possess good physique;
(c) should be able to read and write a simple passage
in their mother tongue; and
(d) should have proficiency in the work for which they
are to be engaged; and
(e) should pass such test as may be specified by the
Inspector-General in writing.”
5. As per Rule 24(e), it is the Inspector-General, who has the
power to specify the tests to be undertaken for recruitment of the
Enrolled Followers. However, on perusal of records, the Draft
Recruitment Programmes finalised by the Chairman of both the
Recruitment Boards and sent for approval to Police Head
Quarters, Tripura (hereinafter referred to as “PHQ”), were
approved by Director General of Police (Tripura State Rifles)
(hereinafter referred to as “DGP”). When an explanation was
sought from the learned counsel for the respondent-State, it was
fairly stated that Inspector-General has been replaced by DGP
vide the Tripura State Rifles (Second Amendment) Act, 2006. As
such, the drafts sent by the Chairman of Recruitment Board are
now being approved by DGP, specifying the lists which are to be
5
cleared. Thus, the procedure as explained is having statutorybacking.
FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE MATTER:
6. It is not in dispute, that as per Rule 8 of TSR Rules and vide
communication of the PHQ, the recruitment process for total 506
vacancies of Enrolled Followers in the Tripura State Rifles was
bifurcated in two categories – “inside-state quota” and “outside-
state quota”, specifying the number of posts for respective
categories, which is the subject matter in this case.
Inside-State Quota
6.1. PHQ on 05.11.2014 sent a communication to the
Government of Tripura (Home) Department (hereinafter referred
to as “Home Department”) indicating the number of total
vacancies of Enrolled Followers in Tripura State Rifles Battalions.
The same was approved by the Home Department directing
initiation of the recruitment process vide communication dated
30.07.2015. Pursuant to the same, on 14.03.2016, a draft
proposal was sent by PHQ to the Home Department for
constitution of a Recruitment Board. The Home Department
approved the same on 18.06.2016. The Draft Recruitment
6
Programme by Chairman of the Recruitment Board, was sent to
PHQ for approval on 26.08.2016 and the same was approved by
DGP and communicated to the Chairman on 07.09.2016. After
the approval, the Chairman issued an advertisement on
09.09.2016 for filling up 372 vacancies of Enrolled Followers in
the inside-state quota.
6.2. Subsequently, recruitment rallies were held from
24.09.2016 to 07.12.2016. The proceedings of recruitment were
submitted to the PHQ on 23.04.2017 by the Recruitment Board.
The same were forwarded to the Home Department by PHQ on
12.05.2017, for approval and for starting the process of character
verification. The same were approved by Home Department for
further course of action on 29.05.2017. On 09.06.2017, a
communication was sent by the PHQ to the Commandant, 2nd
Battalion, Tripura State Rifles to complete necessary steps
towards issuing appointment offers.
Outside-State quota
6.3. PHQ on 05.11.2014 sent a communication to the Home
Department indicating the number of total vacancies of Enrolled
Followers in Tripura State Rifle Battalions. The same was
7
approved by the Home Department directing to initiate the
recruitment process vide communication dated 30.07.2015.
Pursuant to the same, on 14.03.2016, a draft proposal was sent
by the PHQ to the Home Department for constitution of a
Recruitment Board. The Home Department approved the same on
18.06.2016. The Draft Recruitment Programme by Chairman of
Recruitment Board was sent to PHQ for approval on 02.09.2016
and the same was approved by DGP and communicated to the
Chairman on 08.09.2016. After the approval, the Chairman
issued an advertisement on 14.09.2016 for filling up 134
vacancies of Enrolled Followers in the outside-state quota.
6.4. Subsequently, recruitment rallies were held from
23.10.2016 to 15.11.2016. The proceedings of recruitment were
submitted to the PHQ on 20.12.2016 by the Recruitment Board.
PHQ on 21.12.2016 forwarded the same to the Home Department
for its necessary approval for starting the process of character
verification. The same was approved by the Home Department for
further course of action on 30.12.2016. On 09.06.2017, a
communication was sent by the PHQ to the Commandant, 2nd
Battalion, Tripura State Rifles to complete necessary steps
towards issuing appointment offers.
8
7. The record pertaining to recruitment indicates that on
13.07.2017, the Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Tripura State Rifles
requested for more time to complete the verification process of the
prospective selectees in both quotas for which three months’ time
was granted by the DGP on 26.07.2017 with request to complete
such process early. The Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Tripura
State Rifles on 17.10.2017 requested PHQ to suspend issuance of
offers of appointment until verification reports are received, with
the intention to avoid any complicacy, which was allowed because
in process of verification some forged certificates were noticed.
The PHQ forwarded this to the Secretary, LR & Law, Government
of Tripura (hereinafter referred to as “Secretary, LR & Law”),
who vide noting dated 31.10.2017 opined that appointment offers
shall be issued only after completion of verification. In case of any
delay, appointment offers could be issued excluding those cases
where the verification report had not been received. This was
further approved by the DGP on 15.11.2017.
8. That being so, during the ongoing recruitment process, the
State of Tripura was occupied with the elections of Legislative
Assembly. After the elections, new government was formed on
03.03.2018. On 14.03.2018, a memorandum no. F.20(1)-
9
GA(P&T)/18 (hereinafter referred to as “Abeyance
Memorandum”) was issued stating that for the purpose of
reviewing the recruitment process, all the ongoing recruitment by
all the departments/autonomous bodies under Government shall
be kept in abeyance until further orders. As a consequence of
this, the recruitment process in the present case came to a halt.
The said notification is quoted hereinbelow:
“NO. F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (PERSONNEL & TRAINING)
DEPARTMENTDated, Agartala, the 14th March 2018.
MEMORANDUM
Sub: – Recruitment/selection process in all Department
kept in abeyance.
The undersigned is directed to state that the State
Government has decided that the recruitment process of the
Government shall be reviewed and pending such review, all the
ongoing recruitment/selection processes in Departments/
autonomous bodies etc. under the Government, shall be kept in
abeyance with immediate effect. However, the recruitment
process initiated on the directions of Hon’ble Supreme
Court/High Court or any other court within the State shall not
be stopped without obtaining specific orders from the concerned
court in this regard.
2. All Departments/ Heads of Departments, Autonomous
bodies are, therefore, requested to comply the same and make
necessary arrangement for further circulation of the aforesaid
instruction to their subordinate offices also for necessary
compliance.
10
Sd/-
(Santosh Das)
Additional Secretary to the
Government of Tripura”
9. On 05.06.2018, the State Government vide notification no.
F-20(1)-GA(P&T)/18, issued a new recruitment policy (hereinafter
referred to as “NRP”) applicable to all the establishments under
administrative control of the State Government. For ready
reference, the same is reproduced hereunder:
“Subject: New Recruitment Policy for all establishments under
administrative control of the Government of Tripura.In supersession of all earlier instructions in connection with
selection/recruitment of different categories of candidates by
direct recruitment for government employment under the
administrative control of Government of Tripura, the State
Government has decided the following principles:-
1. Written test should be the primary means to test suitability
of candidates for Government Jobs. The test should be
designed in such a manner that the required skills and
competencies can be tested in an online mode. For such posts
where special skills are required, separate proficiency/
personality test may be taken in a transparent manner.
1.2. Interview should be completely abolished for Group-D
posts, however soft skill test may be taken.
1.3. Interview should ordinarily, not be taken for B and C
category of posts. However, only in exceptional circumstances,
for certain categories of Group B and C posts, where
justification is given by the Department concerned, provision for
interview/ skill test may be kept with prior approval of the
Cabinet. Further, wherever such a provision is kept, the
weightage for interview/ skill test should not exceed 10% of
total marks and the interview should be video graphed.
11
1.4. The Group A, Group-B and C posts which are at present
covered by TPSC will continue to be filled as per the existing
practice. However, weightage for the interview should not
exceed 10% of total marks. In exceptional case weightage of
interview may be increased beyond 10% with the approval of
cabinet, if sufficient justification exists.
1.5. There are certain Group-A posts, which are at present
outside the purview of TPSC. For the time being, this system
may continue subject to the condition that the processes shall
be made more fair, open and transparent. Adequate changes
shall be made in the recruitment process/rules for these posts
so that selection is done on the basis of written exam followed
by interview with weightage of latter not being more than 10%.
Further, review should be taken up by the concerned
Departments to narrow down this category so that over a period
of time, as far as practicable, all such posts are filled through
recruitment conducted by TPSC.
1.6. Keeping in view the need to have a highly professional
cadre at higher positions in the Government, recruitment for the
left over (remaining Group-B) posts should also be taken up by
TPSC.
1.7. The posts in Police, Fire Service and Jail Department which
are currently outside the purview of TPSC should be filled by
the respective Departments subject to the overall principles
proposed at Para -1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 above.
1.8. There is a need to revise existing Recruitment Rules (RRs)
such that there is proper mapping/correlation between the
qualification, competencies and job profile. Further, in such
cases where there is similarity in the nature of jobs or jobs are
common across various Departments, the RRs have to be
suitably revised to bring in a greater degree of uniformity so as
to facilitate common recruitment as far as practicable.
1.9. For the posts where there is intake by both direct
recruitment and promotion, the intake ratio from each stream
(direct and promotion) should, to the extent possible, be kept
uniform across all the Departments.
1.10. The role of TPSC may be expanded and suitable
manpower and resources may be placed at its disposal to
enable it to ensure recruitment following the recruitment
principles mentioned above.
12
1.11. A new institution may be set up which may take up the
recruitments for all Group-B, C and D posts, excluding the posts
covered in Para 1.4 above. This body may function within the
broad principles proposed at Para 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. For this,
further follow up action may be taken by GA (P&T) Department.
2. All the above recommendations will be applicable with the
prospective effect only.
3. The Revised General Employment Guidelines for all
Departments of the State Government for selection of
candidates by open interview for Group-C and Group-D posts to
be filled up by direct recruitment issued vide Memorandum
No.F.23(8)-GA(P&T)/14 dated 23rd July, 2016 is hereby
repealed and replaced by this Notification.
By the order of the Governor
Sd/-
(Santosh Das)
Additional Secretary
to the Government of Tripura.”
10. With respect to the said policy, the State Government vide
memorandum no. F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18 dated 20.08.2018 decided
to make all new appointments under NRP, and all the existing
recruitment processes initiated by the respective departments
were directed to be cancelled (hereinafter referred to as
“Cancellation Memorandum”). The said Cancellation
Memorandum as challenged is reproduced hereunder:
“NO.F. 20(1)-GA(P&T)/18
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (PERSONNEL & TRAINING)
DEPARTMENTDated, Agartala, the 20th August, 2018
13
MEMORANDUMSubject: Recruitment/Selection process as per New
Recruitment Policy.
Attention is invited to this Department’s Memorandum of
even number dated 14.03.2018 wherein all the
recruitment/selection processes were kept in abeyance w.e.f.
14.03.2018 until further orders.
2. The State Government has now notified a New Recruitment
Policy vide this Department’s Notification of even number dated
05.06.2018. Accordingly, the Memorandum issued vide No. F.20(1)-
GA(P&T)/18 dated 14.03.2018 now stands superseded.
3. The competent authority in the State Government has
decided that in view of the New Recruitment Policy approved by the
Government, all new appointments should be made as per the New
Recruitment Policy and all existing recruitment processes initiated
by the respective Departments or the TPSC, hereby, stand cancelled
excepting ongoing recruitment of Tripura Judicial Service Grade-III
only for which specific exemption has been accorded in
consultation with the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura.
4. As regards the candidates who had participated in the
cancelled recruitment processes, they are to be given one time
relaxation in upper age limit to enable them to participate once in
the fresh recruitment process subject to providing documentary
evidence of their participation in the earlier recruitment processes
for the same post(s).
5. It is also directed that henceforth, all direct recruitment
should be made strictly as per guidelines contained in the New
Recruitment Policy issued vide Notification No.F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18
dated 05.06.2018 together with prior concurrence of the Finance
Department, the GA(P&T) Department and the approval of the
Council of Ministers.
6. All Departments are, therefore, advised to strictly comply
with these decisions.
Sd/-
14
(Vishwasree B)
Joint Secretary to
the Government of Tripura”
Aggrieved by such cancellation, multiple writ petitions were
filed before High Court challenging Abeyance and Cancellation
Memorandums, and seeking direction for completion of the
ongoing recruitment process.
FINDINGS OF HIGH COURT IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT:
11. By a common impugned judgment dated 03.10.2019, High
Court dismissed all the writ petitions. While dismissing, the
Court noted the change in the political dispensation in the State
after elections. The new government had taken a policy decision
to keep all the ongoing recruitment processes in abeyance,
following which NRP was notified, which led to issuance of the
Cancellation Memorandum. The High Court, while referring to
the TSR Act and TSR Rules, observed that the administrative
instructions cannot prevail over statutory rules. It further
observed that neither the NRP nor the Cancellation
Memorandum has overriding effect over the statutory rules nor
the government had any intention to do so, because to bring any
15
change, rules have to be reframed to bring them in sync with thepolicy decision.
12. In the latter part of the judgement, it was observed that NRP
was introduced by the State Government to bring more
transparency and fairness in the process of recruitment in larger
public interest and to bring greater uniformity. In such situation,
the Court observed that interference in the policy decision of the
State is not warranted. Further, it was said that the present case
does not attract principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate
expectation as claimed by the appellants. It was also observed
that mere completion of process of selection to the post of
Enrolled Followers does not confer any indefeasible right of
appointment on the appellants. As such, it was concluded that
interjection in the ongoing recruitment process was not because
of the change of the government or political dispensation, but due
to change of policy in larger public interest.
13. Some of the writ petitioners had filed these appeals
challenging the judgment of the High Court while some of the
appellants who were affected by the impugned judgment sought
16
permission to challenge the same as such these appeals assailingthe judgment of the High Court have been heard together.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS:
14. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Pallav Shishodia has
vehemently argued and submitted that appellants had applied for
the post of Enrolled Followers and participated in the selection
process. On completion of the selection process, they were
granted tokens and called to concerned police stations for
character verification. The said recruitment process was
undertaken as specified by TSR Act and TSR Rules. Thus,
cancelling such process of selection in the wake of NRP, without
amending the TSR Act and TSR Rules, is not based on valid
statutory backing which is arbitrary and illegal. It was submitted
that once a recruitment process begins, it cannot be changed
midway by executive instructions, i.e., by bringing the NRP and
issuing the Cancellation Memorandum for ongoing recruitment
process. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed
on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Tej Prakash
Pathak and Others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others 1. It
was also submitted, that as per Clause (2) of NRP, its
1 (2025) 2 SCC 1, 2024 INSC 847.
17
applicability is prospective hence it cannot be made applicable on
the pending recruitment processes.
15. It was also contended that once a recruitment process is in
progress in terms of the relevant statute, no policy decision can
stall and/or cancel the process of recruitment. In the facts of this
case, when selection process was completed, and appellants were
selected provisionally, they have a legitimate expectation of
appointment, which is not against the public policy. To buttress
the said contention, reliance has been placed on the Constitution
Bench judgment of this Court in Sivanandan C.T. and Others
vs. High Court of Kerala and Others 2.
16. In view of the foregoing, appellants submit that Abeyance
Memorandum dated 14.03.2018 and Cancellation Memorandum
dated 20.08.2018 be quashed and direction be issued to complete
the recruitment process within a time frame.
17. Per contra, learned senior counsel, Col. R.
Balasubramanaian appearing for the State has vociferously
contended that High Court has rightly dismissed the writ
petitions giving cogent reasons. It is not disputed by the State
that the process of recruitment for the post of Enrolled Followers
2 (2024) 3 SCC 799, 2023 INSC 709.
18
was conducted in accordance with TSR Act and TSR Rules. In the
meantime, new government was formed, which issued Abeyance
Memorandum and subsequently, cancelled the ongoing
recruitment processes vide Cancellation Memorandum which was
in larger public interest.
18. It was contended that the decision to cancel the ongoing
recruitment process was taken consciously relying upon the NRP,
which was well within the competence of the State. The decision
was taken with the intention to bring more transparency and
fairness in the process of selection. It was further contended that
recruitment process was still ongoing as no final merit list was
published. Thus, mere participation in the recruitment process
will not confer any indefeasible right of appointment on the
appellants. Further, there can be no legitimate expectation in
their favour. In support of their contention, reliance has been
placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the
case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India3.
19. Learned senior counsel also contended that Clause (2) of
NRP has been wrongly interpreted by the appellants. The intent
of Clause (2) of NRP was for the policy not to apply to those
3 (1991) 3 SCC 47, 1991 INSC 120.
19
recruitments which have been completed prior to the issuance of
NRP. In the present case, as the recruitment process was still
ongoing, NRP will apply. It is therefore submitted that the High
Court has rightly dismissed the writ petitions and no interference
is warranted by this Court.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
20. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and
on perusal of the facts and material placed on record, the
following issues arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the Abeyance Memorandum dated 14.03.2018
and Cancellation Memorandum dated 20.08.2018
purportedly issued in the wake of change of policy of the
State in larger public interest, under the executive
instructions, and in consequence, the cancellation of
recruitment process as specified in TSR Act and TSR
Rules for the post of Enrolled Followers after preparation
of the provisional selection list, is justified and has any
sanction of law?
20
(2) Whether the State’s decision to apply NRP to the ongoing
recruitment process of Enrolled Followers under the
pretext of the Cancellation Memorandum would amount
to changing the rules of the game after the game has
begun, i.e., the recruitment process has commenced?
(3) Whether in the context of this case, the principle of
legitimate expectation is attracted; and in the facts, what
relief can be granted?
ANALYSIS OF ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2:
Issue nos. 1 and 2 posed above are interlinked, hence, the
contentions are being appreciated and answered collectively.
21. The dispute in the present case revolves around the
challenge to Abeyance Memorandum dated 14.03.2018, and
Cancellation Memorandum dated 20.08.2018 pursuant to the
decision to apply NRP in the ongoing recruitment process for
Enrolled Followers in Tripura State Rifles. The pertinent factual
backdrop leading to the said decision needs to be referred.
22. The Council of Ministers in exercise of powers under Rule
20(2) of the Rules of Executive Business of the Government of the
State of Tripura, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of
21
Executive Business”), on 10.03.2018, decided that therecruitment process is required to be reviewed and pending such
review, all ongoing recruitment / selection processes in all
Departments / autonomous bodies etc. under the control of
Government shall be kept in abeyance. In pursuance of the said
decision of the Cabinet, the Abeyance Memorandum dated
14.03.2018 was issued by the General Administration (Personnel
& Training) Department, under the signature of the Additional
Secretary to the Government of Tripura.
23. While process of review was undertaken, the Review
Committee recommended that interviews for Group–D posts
should be completely abolished. The Review Committee
pertinently made the recommendation that recruitment rules
need to be amended / revised in order to bring about uniformity
in posts and to facilitate common recruitment. In consequence,
NRP dated 05.06.2018 was notified for and on behalf of the
Governor of the State, styled as ‘New Recruitment Policy for all
establishments under administrative control of the Government
of Tripura’.
22
24. On 02.08.2018, in a meeting of the Council of Ministers, in
furtherance to the publication of NRP, it was decided that all
existing recruitment processes (except for Tripura Judicial
Service) whether undertaken by the Tripura Public Service
Commission or the respective departments, will be cancelled and
all new appointments shall be made as per NRP providing the age
relaxation to the participants of the ongoing recruitment
processes. The decision of the Council of Ministers dated
02.08.2018 fructified in the form of Cancellation Memorandum
dated 20.08.2018, whereby the ongoing recruitment processes
were cancelled in the above terms.
25. The meeting of the Council of Ministers dated 10.03.2018,
which is the inception of the series of events detailed above was
conducted under the Rules of Executive Business framed in
exercise of the powers conferred under Article 166(2) and 166(3)
of the Constitution of India. As per the Second Schedule of the
said Rules read with Rules 8, 14 and 31, proposals for making or
amending rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of
service of persons appointed to the public service and posts in
connection with the State and proposals involving any important
23
change of policy or practice, are to be brought before the Councilof Ministers.
26. From the above conspectus, we can safely conclude that the
NRP dated 05.06.2018 is an executive instruction of the State
issued under Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India, following
the meeting of the Council of Ministers. It was in the nature of a
general policy decision to bring about a change in recruitment
process of the State. 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. As such, Abeyance
Memorandum and Cancellation Memorandum are also issued in
exercise of the executive power of the State by issuing executive
orders.
Status of the recruitment process of enrolled followers
27. The present appeals concern two categories of candidates,
i.e., citizens within Tripura and residents of other states. For
both, two separate advertisements were issued and recruitment
processes were undertaken separately, although they were for the
same post of Enrolled Followers in Tripura State Rifles. We have
examined the voluminous record and documents supplied by the
24
Respondent pertaining to both the advertisements and as
discussed in paras 6.1 to 6.4 and 7 of this judgment, without an
iota of doubt it can be said that in both the recruitment
processes, selection lists were prepared and significant progress
was made up to the stage of character verification which was in
process.
28. In the recruitment for inside-state candidates for the
citizens within Tripura, advertisement was issued on
09.09.2016. Various recruitment rallies were conducted all
across Tripura on various dates between 24.09.2016 to
07.12.2016. During the said recruitment rallies, candidates
having required physical standards as well as other eligibility
criteria, were put through a physical / endurance test. Qualified
candidates in the physical test were allowed to sit for a written
test, and those candidates who had qualified both the physical /
endurance test and written test were then allowed to appear for a
‘viva – voce’. In total, 2,388 candidates of the inside-state quota
participated in recruitment process, out of which 1,696
candidates were found to be qualified after completion of the
physical test, written test and viva-voce. Out of the combined
25
merit list of 1,696 candidates, the Board recommended only for
filling up 350 vacant posts.
29. In the recruitment for outside-state quota candidates,
advertisement was issued on 14.09.2016, recruitment rallies
were conducted between 23.10.2016 to 15.11.2016 in Kotdwar
(North India), Ranchi (Central India) and Vishakhapatnam (Vizag)
(South India) on different dates. During the said recruitment
rallies, candidates having required physical standards as well as
other eligibility criteria, were put through a physical / endurance
test. Qualified candidates in the physical test were allowed to sit
for a written test and those candidates who had qualified both
the physical / endurance test and the written test were allowed to
appear for a ‘viva-voce’. In total, 1,429 candidates were
preliminarily shortlisted at the recruitment rallies, where 372
candidates were qualified after completing the physical test,
written test and viva voce. Out of the combined merit list of 372
candidates, the Board recommended only for filling up 134
vacant posts, and the remaining 238 candidates were
recommended to be kept on a panel list / waiting list.
26
30. As such, it is needless to say, the process of recruitment
was not at a nascent stage. Much prior to the issuance of
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 either
inside-state quota or outside-state quota in Tripura State Rifles
had reached the stage of preparation of the final merit list after
completion of the recruitment process as specified.
Statutory Rules vs. Executive Order
31. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the recruitment
for the post of Enrolled Followers in Tripura State Rifles was
carried out under TSR Act and TSR Rules. The relevant
provisions have already been discussed in the factual part in
paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this judgement. The said facts have not
been disputed by the Respondents in their counter affidavit.
32. Under TSR Act read with TSR Rule 24(e), the mandate is for
the candidate to pass such test as may be specified by the DGP in
writing. In respect of the advertisement for inside-state
candidates, the DGP accorded his approval for a ‘physical test,
written test and viva voce’ on 07.09.2016, whereas for outside-
27
state candidates, approval was accorded for ‘physical test, written
test, practical, interview’ on 08.09.2016. Such a stipulation was
plainly reflected in both advertisements, and after
commencement of the recruitment process, it was carried out
keeping in mind the stipulation in the TSR Rules.
33. As per Cancellation Memorandum dated 20.08.2018, the
reasoning for cancellation of ongoing recruitment processes was
to implement NRP, and in particular, in the context of the present
two advertisements, to completely abolish interviews in the
recruitment for Group-D posts. As such, the ancillary question
which arises for our consideration is whether a policy decision in
general, notified by way of executive instructions, can override
the mandate of TSR Act and TSR Rules.
34. While appreciating the said question it is to be recorded that
the recruitment for the post of Enrolled Followers, within the
inside State quota or outside State quota, was at the verge of
completion. Undisputedly, it is not rebutted by the Government
that the said process was not carried out under TSR Act and TSR
Rules, or that the character verification of the candidates who
found place in the panel, had not been initiated. From the record,
28
it reveals that the appointment orders were to be issued subject
to verification of the documents. In the meantime, legislative
assembly elections were notified and after elections there was a
change in the political landscape of the State. Immediately upon
assuming the functioning of the government by the new political
dispensation, a decision to review the recruitment process of all
departments was taken on the pretext of making the process
more fair, open and transparent. From the record of the selection
or as per averments in the counter affidavit, nothing can be
elucidated as to why the existing process of selection was not fair
and transparent. For the recruitment to the post of Enrolled
Followers, the process undertaken was as per the provisions of
TSR Act and TSR Rules framed thereunder, having statutory
backing. It is not contended in the counter affidavit that the
pending recruitment process for Enrolled Followers, has in any
manner violated the provisions of the TSR Act and/or TSR Rules,
and was not transparent or unfair in any manner. In the said
context, it can safely be observed that if recruitment process was
carried out as per the TSR Act and TSR Rules framed thereunder,
deviation was not permitted by way of executive instructions in
the wake of policy decision of the government, otherwise it would
29
amount to overriding the recruitment process carried out under
the aforesaid Act and Rules by means of executive instructions.
For clarity, it is to be observed that where the subject and the
field is occupied by the statute and the rules, the executive
instructions cannot supplant the same; they can only
supplement, otherwise it would render the act done under the
statute to be void. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that Enrolled
Followers is a Class–IV (Group–D) post and as per policy decision
of NRP, interview for Class–IV (Group–D) post is to be completely
abolished. However, no such amendment to that effect has been
brought either in the statute and/or in the rules yet. Under such
circumstances, merely because of a new recruitment policy, the
recruitment process under the Act and Rules cannot be
cancelled.
35. This Court has had the occasion to examine similar legal
issue in multiple cases. The Constitution Bench in Sant Ram
Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan 4, while dealing with an office
memorandum of the Central Government in respect of promotion
under the All India Services Act, 1951 and the Indian Police
Service (Fixation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, held:
4 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16, 1967 INSC 167.
30
“7. We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr N.C.
Chatterjee that in the absence of any statutory rules governing
promotions to selection grade posts the Government cannot
issue administrative instructions and such administrative
instructions cannot impose any restrictions not found in the
Rules already framed. We are unable to accept this argument as
correct. It is true that there is no specific provision in the Rules
laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade
officers to selection grade posts. But that does not mean that till
statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot
issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be
followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection
grade posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or
supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if
the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill
up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions
not inconsistent with the rules already framed.”
36. This Court in the case of A.B. Krishna and Ors. vs. State
of Karnataka and Ors.5, observed as under:
“8. The Fire Services under the State Government were
created and established under the Fire Force Act, 1964 made by
the State Legislature. It was in exercise of the power conferred
under Section 39 of the Act that the State Government made
Service Rules regulating the conditions of the Fire Services.
Since the Fire Services had been specially established under an
Act of the legislature and the Government, in pursuance of the
power conferred upon it under that Act, has already made
Service Rules, any amendment in the Karnataka Civil Services
(General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 would not affect the special
provisions Validly made for the Fire Services. As a matter of
fact, under the scheme of Article 309 of the Constitution, once a
legislature intervenes to enact a law regulating the conditions of
service, the power of the Executive, including the President or
the Governor, as the case may be, is totally displaced on the
principle of “doctrine of occupied field”. If, however, any matter
is not touched by that enactment, it will be competent for the5 (1998) 3 SCC 495, 1998 INSC 22.
31
Executive to either issue executive instructions or to make a rule
under Article 309 in respect of that matter.”
37. In Jaiveer Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Ors.6, while deciding a similar legal issue, this Court observed as
follows:
“49. It can thus be seen that it is a trite law that the
Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by
administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any
particular point, it can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules
and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already
framed. It is a settled proposition of law that an authority
cannot issue orders/office memorandum/executive instructions
in contravention of the statutory rules. However, instructions
can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to
supplant it.”
38. In Bank of Baroda and Another vs. G. Palani and Others 7
where an executive instruction by the name of ‘joint note’ was
issued to change pensionary benefits provided to the employees
under Banking Companies Act, 1970 and Regulations of 1995
made u/s 19 of the Act, it was held that such an executive
instruction cannot supplant the provisions of the statute. The
relevant paragraph is reproduced below as thus:
“14. First we come to the rigour of the regulations, The
regulations have statutory force, having framed in exercise of
the powers under section 19(2)(f) of the 1970 Act and are
binding. They could not have been supplanted by any executive
fiat, order or joint note, which has no statutory basis. The joint6 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1584, 2023 INSC 1024.
7 (2022) 5 SCC 612.
32
note of the officers also had no statutory force behind it and
could not have obliterated any of the provisions of 1970 act or
the existing regulations. Thus, joint notes could not have taken
away the rights that were available under the 1995 pension
regulations to the officer.”
39. Recently, in R. Ranjith Singh and Others vs. State of
Tamil Nadu and Others8, service rules were framed under the
relevant state Act and Article 309 of the Constitution of India and
various government orders were issued by the State without
amending the relevant rules to give 20% reservation to in-service
candidates in direct recruitment posts and for maintenance of
their seniority. It was held by this Court that the government
orders had the effect of supplanting the statutory rules instead of
supplementing them, which is not permissible. This Court noted
as follows:
“19. xxxx
….The State Government has certainly issued various executive
directions from time to time for appointment under the direct
recruitment quota providing reservation to in-service candidates
to the extent of 20%; however, the rules were never amended till
21.11.2017. It is a well settled proposition of law that executive
instructions cannot supplant the statutory rules. They can
supplement/clarify the statutory rules. In the present case, the
executive instructions issued from time to time have in fact
supplanted the statutory rules and such a process is unheard of
in the field of service jurisprudence.”8 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1009, 2025 INSC 612.
33
40. Applying the above principles of law, it can safely be
concluded that 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. It is not the case of the
government that to fill the gaps and to supplement the TSR Act
and TSR Rules, the NRP is relevant, therefore, Abeyance
Memorandum or Cancellation Memorandum may be upheld. In
absence of the same, in our view, the action of the government in
cancelling the process of recruitment for the post of Enrolled
Followers is not justified and would amount to arbitrary exercise
of power.
41. It is further relevant to discuss that the pretext which has
been taken to issue Cancellation Memorandum is NRP dated
05.06.2018. The said policy is based on the recommendation of
the three-members review committee constituted by the State
Government to review recruitment policy across the State and all
its departments. The recommendations of the committee were
34
plain and specific, inter-alia, observing that “all the above
recommendations will be applicable with prospective effect only”.
In addition to the discussions as made hereinabove, in absence of
the statutory backing behind the policy, the recommendations as
made for abolition of the interview of Class-IV (Group-D) posts
would apply with prospective date only. Meaning thereby, it would
not apply to the process of recruitment of Enrolled Followers, for
whom, the interviews have already been conducted. Hence,
application of NRP on the pending recruitment process is
contrary to clause (2) of the said policy.
Plea of Larger Public Interest
42. It is vehemently argued that the recruitment process was
kept in abeyance and later cancelled based on NRP which was a
bona fide decision by the Government in larger public interest. In
support of the said contention, in the Counter Affidavit, it is said
that the decision of the State shall be of benefit in the long run,
because qualified candidates shall be recruited on merit, which
may enhance overall efficiency of administration in the State.
43. Apart from this, there is no mention even in the NRP as to
how larger public interest can be achieved by abolition of
35
interviews for Group-D posts such as Enrolled Followers. It is
difficult to see how such larger public interest can be achieved in
the present context specifically where the recruitment process for
Enrolled Followers was at a significantly advanced stage and
interviews had already been conducted.
44. The Constitution bench judgement of this Court in Tej
Prakash Pathak (Supra) has noted the importance of interviews
in a recruitment process to assess the suitability of a candidate.
The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced below
as thus: –
“49. The ultimate object of any process of selection for
entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most
suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism.
Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is
the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public
service. So, open competitive examination has come to be
accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services.
[Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159, para 4 :
1981 SCC (L&S) 588] It is now well settled that while a written
examination assesses a candidate’s knowledge and intellectual
ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidate’s
overall intellectual and personal qualities.
xx xx xx xx
51. What is clear from above is that the object of any
process of selection for entry into a public service is to ensure
that a person most suitable for the post is selected. What is
suitable for one post may not be for the other. Thus, a degree of
discretion is necessary to be left to the employer to devise its
method/procedure to select a candidate most suitable for the
post albeit subject to the overarching principles enshrined in36
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as also the rules/statute
governing service and reservation.”
45. It goes without saying that certain level of discretion must
be given to the State but merely suggesting that a decision to
keep an ongoing recruitment process in abeyance and its
subsequent cancellation was in the larger public interest, is not
sufficient. The burden is on the State to justify the decision on
the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and
show how its decision was in furtherance of larger public interest.
46. In our considered opinion, the State has miserably failed in
discharging such burden, and in the facts and circumstances of
this case, we are unable to agree with the contention of the State
that the decision to keep the ongoing recruitment process in
abeyance and its subsequent cancellation was in the larger public
interest.
Change of rules of the game after the game has begun
47. The recruitment process under the two advertisements
commenced on the date of their respective issuance. At the cost of
repetition and as discussed above, much water had flown after
such commencement. The State had taken active and tangible
steps such as constituting the Recruitment Board, setting up
37
different State teams for recruitment rallies which were
conducted all across India, candidates were tested physically, in a
written exam and orally through an interview. A provisional merit
list was purportedly prepared in pursuance of the recruitment
process. After all this, Cancellation Memorandum was issued on
20.08.2018 which was general in nature, effectively setting the
clock back and putting the entire process at nought.
48. The reasoning behind the said cancellation, as suggested by
the State of Tripura, is that it was decided by the Government
that not only future recruitment, but also ongoing recruitment
processes must invariably be governed by the NRP. In the context
of the present case, the marked difference which would be
brought about by the NRP is that interview cannot be conducted
as a part of the procedure for recruitment given that the post of
‘Enrolled Follower’ is a Group-D post, even though the stage of
taking interviews is already over in the present case.
49. This Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra) has affirmed the
decision in K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. and Another 9, and
held that the recruitment authority can devise a procedure for
selection only in absence of rules to the contrary, however, the
9 (2008) 3 SCC 512, 2008 INSC 195.
38
same should be done prior to commencement of the recruitment
process. It has been held that if benchmarks are to be laid down
in different steps of the recruitment process, they cannot be laid
down after the completion of that particular step, when the game
has already been played. The relevant portion of the said
judgement is reproduced below as thus: –
“52. Thus, in our view, the appointing
authority/recruiting authority/competent authority, in absence
of rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a
candidate suitable to the post and while doing so it may also
set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process
including written examination and interview. However, if any
such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the
commencement of the recruitment process. But if the extant
Rules or the advertisement inviting applications empower the
competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of the
recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be set any
time before that stage is reached so that neither the candidate
nor the evaluator/examiner/interviewer is taken by surprise.
53. The decision in K. Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State
of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] does not
proscribe setting of benchmarks for various stages of the
recruitment process but mandates that it should not be set after
the stage is over, in other words after the game has already
been played. This view is in consonance with the rule against
arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and
meets the legitimate expectation of the candidates as also the
requirement of transparency in recruitment to public services
and thereby obviates malpractices in preparation of select list.”
50. In the present case, not only benchmarks are being set after
the game has been played, rather the State has decided that a
portion of the game itself, the step of interview, should not have
39
been played at all. As discussed above, in pursuance of Rule 24(e)
of the TSR Rules, the DGP had approved interview as one of the
tests required to be passed. Thereafter, candidates participated in
interviews and were ranked accordingly. It can be said that the
stage of interview was over much prior to the issuance of the
Cancellation Memorandum.
51. The Constitution bench in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra) has
also clarified that the procedure prescribed in the extant rules
cannot be violated and administrative instructions can only be
used to supplement and fill the gap in the Rules; they cannot be
used to supplant the Rules completely, as has been done in the
present case. These administrative instructions, in any case,
cannot be diametrically opposite to what the Rules provide. The
relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced below as
thus: –
“62. There can therefore be no doubt that where there are
no rules or the rules are silent on the subject, administrative
instructions may be issued to supplement and fill in the gaps in
the rules. In that event administrative instructions would govern
the field provided they are not ultra vires the provisions of the
rules or the statute or the Constitution. But where the rules
expressly or impliedly cover the field, the recruiting body would
have to abide by the rules.”40
52. In the present case, on the strength of a general policy
decision of the State, an ongoing recruitment process was first
put in abeyance and then cancelled, it has been derailed with the
intention to implement NRP when the recruitment has already
reached the stage of preparation of the merit list. 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, i.e. recruitment process has
commenced. 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. In view of the conclusions drawn as above, Issue Nos. 1
and 2 are answered in the above terms.
ISSUE NO. 3
Legitimate expectation and indefeasible right
41
53. Another aspect of the matter is the question as to whether
any absolute right of appointment has accrued in favour of the
appellants by participating in the recruitment process after
completion of the recruitment rallies and when a provisional
merit list has been prepared, or if they have a legitimate
expectation to be recruited having participated in the process. If
so, whether cancellation of the recruitment process would
impinge upon such legitimate expectation.
54. On the said issue, the State has placed heavy reliance on
the judgement in Shankarsan Dash (Supra) to argue that mere
participation in the selection process or even placement on the
select list would not create an indefeasible right for appointment
in favour of the appellants. On the other side, the appellants have
placed reliance on Sivanandan C.T. (Supra) to argue that they
have a legitimate expectation to be appointed after having
participated in the recruitment process.
55. It is trite law, and no contest can be made in respect of the
settled proposition that mere participation in the recruitment
process or placement in a select list would not create an
indefeasible right to be appointed, even if vacancies are available.
42
The judgement in Shankarsan Dash (Supra) has been followed
subsequently in a plethora of decisions of this Court. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereinafter:
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are
notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates
are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible
right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied.
Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to
qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their
selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the
relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no
legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does
not mean that the State has the license of acting in an arbitrary
manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken
bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any
of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the
recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.”
56. It is clear from a plain reading of the above judgement that
State may choose not to appoint a person who has been placed
on the select list. This was the specific decision of this Court also
in State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and
Others10, subsequently clarified in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra)
where a select list of 40 candidates was drawn up, but against 15
vacancies available, only 7 appointments were made. In that
context, it was held that mere placement on the select list would
not create an obligation for the State to fill up all the vacancies
10 (1974) 3 SCC 220
43
and make appointments, since no indefeasible right of
appointment has accrued in favour of the candidates.
Simultaneously, it goes without saying that the action of the
State should not be arbitrary and decision taken for not filling the
vacancies must be bona fide.
57. However, 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. It was held in Sivanandan CT
(Supra) and later clarified in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra) that in
order to frustrate the legitimate expectation of candidates the
burden is on the State by placing relevant material to objectively
demonstrate that the decision taken by it was in the larger public
interest and not arbitrary. Relevant excerpts from the
Constitution bench decision in Sivanandan CT are quoted
below:
“40. The principle of fairness in action requires that
public authorities be held accountable for their representations,
since the State has a profound impact on the lives of citizens.44
Good administration requires public authorities to act in a
predicable manner and honour the promises made or practices
established unless there is a good reason not to do so.
In Nadarajah [R. (Nadarajah) v. Secy. of State for the Home
Deptt., 2005 EWCA Civ 1363] , Laws, L.J. held that the public
authority should objectively justify that there is an overriding
public interest in denying a legitimate expectation. We are of the
opinion that for a public authority to frustrate a claim of
legitimate expectation, it must objectively demonstrate by
placing relevant material before the court that its decision was
in the public interest. This standard is consistent with the
principles of good administration which require that State
actions must be held to scrupulous standards to prevent misuse
of public power and ensure fairness to citizens.
xx xx xx xx
45. The underlying basis for the application of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation has expanded and evolved to
include the principles of good administration. Since citizens
repose their trust in the State, the actions and policies of the
State give rise to legitimate expectations that the State will
adhere to its assurance or past practice by acting in a
consistent, transparent, and predictable manner. The principles
of good administration require that the decisions of public
authorities must withstand the test of consistency,
transparency, and predictability to avoid being regarded as
arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.”
58. In the present case, it is not that the State has decided to fill
up only some of the available vacancies, but rather it has decided
to do away with the recruitment process altogether. It goes
without saying that the State’s decision not to appoint a person
who has been placed on the select list must not be arbitrary and
must be rooted in objective reasoning. The recruitment process,
especially when it is conducted on the strength of Act and Rules,
45
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.
59. As discussed above, the State has failed to prove that the
decision to apply NRP to the ongoing recruitment process was in
the larger public interest – as such, the legitimate expectation of
fairness in the recruitment process must be upheld.
60. From the discussion made hereinabove and in the facts of
this case, the appellants have participated in the process of
recruitment conducted in furtherance to the provisions of TSR
Act and TSR Rules. Undisputedly, they found place in the panel
of selection. It was only at the stage of character verification, the
process was kept in abeyance, later cancelled, in terms of NRP
which could not have been made applicable to the ongoing
recruitment process. The application of the NRP to the ongoing
recruitment process for the post of Enrolled Followers in Tripura
State Rifles was not in public interest. Therefore, the appellants
do have a legitimate expectation of completion of recruitment
process in a fair and non-arbitrary manner. The recruitment
46
process should be concluded fairly as per TSR Act and TSR Rules
and the candidates may be appointed if they are found to be
meritorious. As such, Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
61. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we allow this
batch of appeals setting aside the impugned judgment passed by
the High Court. As a consequence, the writ petitions of the
appellants are allowed quashing Abeyance Memorandum dated
14.03.2018 and Cancellation Memorandum dated 20.08.2018
insofar as their application to the recruitment process for the
post of Enrolled Followers in Tripura State Rifles is concerned. 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. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….…………….…………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
…….…………….…………J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 28th, 2025.
47 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4467-4468 OF 2023 THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SAMUDRA DEBBARMA & ORS. ....RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4469 OF 2023 THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DEBAPRATIM NAG & ANR. ....RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4471 OF 2023 CHIMAN DEBBARMA & ANR. ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. ....RESPONDENT(S) 1 JUDGMENT J.K. MAHESHWARI J.
1. In this batch of appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-68 of 2023
relate to the recruitment for Tripura Civil Services (hereinafter
referred to as “TCS”), Grade-II, Group ‘A’ gazetted category posts,
which was decided by the impugned judgment dated 03.12.2019 1.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura sustained the
order of the learned Single Judge with certain modifications.
Review petition filed was also dismissed vide judgment dated
13.01.20202. Aggrieved by the same, the State Government has
filed these appeals.
2. Civil Appeal No. 4469 of 2023 relates to the recruitment to
the Tripura Police Service (hereinafter referred to as “TPS”),
Grade II, Group ‘A’ Gazetted category posts, which was decided by
the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2020 3. The Division Bench
relying upon the judgment dated 03.12.2019, which is under
challenge in Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-68 of 2023, set aside the
memorandum dated 20.08.2018 to the extent of Tripura Police
1 WA No. 142 of 2019.
2 Review Petition No. 01 of 2020.
3 WP (C) No. 1437 of 2019.
2
Service Grade-II examination with directions to complete the
recruitment process in connection with the said posts.
3. Civil Appeal No. 4471 of 2023 also relates to Tripura Police
Service, wherein vide order dated 17.09.2021 4, the Writ Petition
filed by the candidate was allowed and disposed of, making
certain observations in view of the stay granted in C.A. Nos.
4467-4468 of 2023 and directing that the directions in C.A. Nos.
4467-4468 of 2023 shall apply.
4. In all the above matters, the controversy revolves around the
abrupt cancellation of the recruitment process of TPS and TCS
governed by the respective rules which are pari materia to each
other. Since the recruitment for the posts of TPS and TCS had
commenced and controversy involved is similar, looking into the
similitude of the origin and controversies in all the aforesaid
appeals, we have proposed to take up all these appeals
analogously and the same are being dealt with by this common
judgment. Since the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-48 and
4469 of 2023 is the State of Tripura and the appellant in Civil
Appeal No. 4471 of 2023 is a recruitment candidate, we shall be
4 WP (C) No. 365 of 2021.
3
referring to the candidates collectively as ‘Candidates’ and the
State of Tripura as ‘State’.
FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE MATTER:
5. The genesis of the present appeals arises from the
recruitment notification styled as ‘Advertisement No. 04/2016’
dated 30.04.2016 published by the Tripura Public Service
Commission (hereinafter referred to as “TPSC”). By the said
advertisement and addendum dated 03.07.2017, applications
were invited for 30 posts of TCS Grade-II and 15 posts of TPS
Grade-II. Both the posts are Group ‘A’ gazetted posts and are
required to be filled up by direct recruitment. The appointments
to the post of TCS and TPS are governed by the rules known as
Tripura Civil Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “TCS
Rules”) and Tripura Police Services Rules (hereinafter referred to
as “TPS Rules”), respectively, which are the rules framed in
exercise of the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. As the rules relating to TCS and TPS are
pari materia, therefore, we are referring to the TCS Rules for
ready reference. Rule 5 provides for a method of recruitment,
whereby 50% of the substantive vacancies shall be filled by direct
4
recruitment, while the remaining vacancies are to be filled by
selection from amongst the persons in service as specified
therein. The direct recruitment has been prescribed through
competitive examination specified in Rule 6, which is to be held at
such intervals as the State Government may in consultation with
the TPSC, from time to time, determine. The date and place is to
be fixed by the TPSC. The said rule is relevant, therefore,
reproduced as thus:
“6. Competitive examination – (1) A competitive examination for
direct recruitment to the Service shall be held at such intervals
as the Central Government may, in consultation with the
Commission from time to time, determine. The dates on which
and the places at which the examination shall be held shall be
fixed by the Commission.
(2) The qualifications for admission to the examination and the
consent thereof shall be in accordance with such regulations as
the Central Government may, from time to time, issue in this
behalf in constitution with the commission.”
6. Pertaining to the qualification for admission to the
examination and conduct thereof, the same shall be in
accordance with such regulations as the State Government may,
from time to time, issue in this respect in consultation with
TPSC. In exercise of the power under Rule 6 of TCS / TPS Rules,
the Governor of the State of Tripura after consultation with TPSC
had issued the Notification styled as “Tripura Civil Service and
5
Tripura Police Service (Appointment by Combined Competitive
Examination (12th Amendment)] Regulation, 2012” (hereinafter
referred to as “the Regulations”). As informed, the Regulations,
which were amended and notified on 30.06.2012, are invoked for
the purpose of recruitment of TCS and TPS. Regulation 11(1)
which was substituted as on the date of notification, relates to
the conduct of the examination, and therefore, it is reproduced as
thus:
“11. (1) The Examination will be held in three successive stages
namely (i) Preliminary Examination (Objective type) (ii) Main
Examination (Conventional type-written) and (iii) Personality
Test. A number of candidates, maximum 10 (ten) times of total
posts (category wise) will be selected merit wise on the basis of
the result of the Preliminary Examination, subject to securing
minimum qualifying marks as fixed by the Commission. These
selected candidates will be allowed to appear in the Main
Examination. The selected candidates on the basis of the
results of the Main Examination will be allowed to
appear in the Personality Test. The Preliminary
Examination, Main Examination and Personality Test will carry
200 marks, 800 marks and 100 marks respectively.
…
(ii) Purpose of preliminary Examination
The Preliminary Examination is meant to serve as a
screening test only for the purpose of selection of
candidates for the Main Examination. The marks
obtained in this examination by the candidates will
not be considered for final selection. Only those
candidates who will be declared qualified at the
Preliminary Examination will be eligible for admission to
the TCS and TPS Main Examination.”
6
7. The said Regulation 11(1)(i) specifies the scheme of the
preliminary examination; (ii) specifies the purpose of preliminary
examination and (iii) describes syllabi for preliminary
examination. Regulation 11(2), as substituted by the said
Notification, specifies about the compulsory papers which can be
opted by the candidates for the purpose of main examination.
The Preliminary Examination is scored out of 200 marks, Main
Examination carries 800 marks and Interview (Personality Test)
carries 100 marks. The regulation further states that the
purpose of preliminary examination is that of a screening test
and marks obtained by the candidates in the same would not be
considered for final selection.
8. For initiation of the recruitment process to the TCS and TPS
Grade-II Group – ‘A’ Gazetted posts, TPSC issued Advertisement
No. 04/2016 dated 30.04.2016 (hereinafter referred to as
“Advertisement”). The relevant portion of the advertisement is
reproduced hereinunder:
“(ii) The final selection will be made in order of merit on the
basis of the marks obtained by a candidate in Main
Examination, in aggregate, adding the marks obtained in the
Personality Test.”7
The aforesaid clarifies that the final merit list of selectedcandidates shall be prepared on the aggregate of marks obtained
in the Main Examination in addition to those obtained in the
Personality Test.
9. The candidates in the respective cases appeared for the
Preliminary Examination held on 10.09.2017. The result of
Preliminary Examination was published on 30.09.2017, in which
they were declared successful. The Main Examination was
conducted between 29.12.2017 and 21.01.2018. In the
meantime, elections to the Tripura State Legislative Assembly
were notified; however, the results of the Main Examination were
not declared. In the said election, the political landscape of the
State changed and the new Government assumed control of the
State. Consequently, on 14.03.2018, a memorandum no. F.20(1)-
GA(P&T)/18 (hereinafter referred to as “Abeyance
Memorandum”) was issued placing the recruitment process in
abeyance on the ground that a comprehensive review of the
recruitment process in the departments / autonomous bodies
under the Government was necessary. The said notification dated
14.03.2018 is quoted hereinbelow:
“NO. F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18
8
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURAGENERAL ADMINISTRATION (PERSONNEL & TRAINING)
DEPARTMENTDated, Agartala, the 14th March 2018.
MEMORANDUM
Sub: – Recruitment/selection process in all Department
kept in abeyance.
The undersigned is directed to state that the State
Government has decided that the recruitment process of the
Government shall be reviewed and pending such review, all the
ongoing recruitment/selection processes in Departments/
autonomous bodies etc. under the Government, shall be kept in
abeyance with immediate effect. However, the recruitment
process initiated on the directions of Hon’ble Supreme
Court/High Court or any other court within the State shall not
be stopped without obtaining specific orders from the concerned
court in this regard.
2. All Departments/ Heads of Departments, Autonomous
bodies are, therefore, requested to comply the same and make
necessary arrangement for further circulation of the aforesaid
instruction to their subordinate offices also for necessary
compliance.
sd/-
(Santosh Das)
Additional Secretary to the
Government of Tripura”
10. Thereafter, vide notification no. F-20(1)-GA(P&T)/18, a New
Recruitment Policy (hereinafter referred to as “NRP”) was notified
on 05.06.2018 with the stated objective of standardising the
recruitment procedure. In the NRP, with respect to Group – ‘A’, ‘B’
9
and ‘C’ posts, clauses 1.4 and 2 were added which are relevant,
therefore, reproduced as thus:
“Subject: New Recruitment Policy for all establishments under
administrative control of the Government of Tripura.In supersession of all earlier instructions in connection with
selection/recruitment of different categories of candidates by
direct recruitment for government employment under the
administrative control of Government of Tripura, the State
Government has decided the following principles:
1. Written test should be the primary means to test suitability
of candidates for Government Jobs. The test should be
designed in such a manner that the required skills and
competencies can be tested in an online mode. For such posts
where special skills are required, separate proficiency/
personally test may be taken in a transparent manner.
1.2. Interview should be completely abolished for Group-D
posts, however soft skill test may be taken.
1.3. Interview should ordinarily, not be taken for B and C
category of posts. However, only in exceptional circumstances,
for certain categories of Group B and C posts, where
justification is given by the Department concerned, provision for
interview/ skill test ay be kept with prior approval of the
Cabinet. Further, wherever such a provision is kept, the
weightage for interview/ skill test should not exceed 10% of
total marks and the interview should be video graphed.
1.4. The Group A, Group-B and C posts which are at present
covered by TPSC will continue to be filled as per the existing
practice. However, weightage for the interview should not
exceed 10% of total marks. In exceptional case weightage of
interview may be increased beyond 10% with the approval of
cabinet, if sufficient justification exists.
1.5. There are certain Group-A posts, which are at present
outside the purview of TPSC. For the time being, this system
may continue subject to the condition that the processes shall
made more fair, open and transparent. Adequate changes shall
be made in the recruitment process/rules for these posts so that
selection is done on the basis of written exam followed by10
interview with weightage of latter not being more than 10%.
Further, review should be taken up by the concerned
Departments to narrow down this category so that over a period
of time, as far as practicable, all such posts are filled through
recruitment conducted by TPSC.
1.6. Keeping in view the need to have a highly professional
cadre at higher positions in the Government, recruitment for the
left over (remaining Group-B) posts should also be taken up by
TPSC.
1.7. The posts in Police, Fire Service and Jail Department which
are currently outside the purview of TPSC should be filled by
the respective Departments subject to the overall principles
proposed at Para -1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 above.
1.8. There is a need to revise existing Recruitment Rules (RRs)
such that there is proper mapping/correlation between the
qualification, competencies and job profile. Further, in such
cases where there is similarity in the nature of jobs or jobs are
common across various Departments, the RRs have to be
suitably revised to bring in a greater degree of uniformity so as
to facilitate common recruitment as far as practicable.
1.9. For the posts where there is intake by both direct
recruitment and promotion, the intake ratio from each stream
(direct and promotion) should, to the extent possible, be kept
uniform across all the Departments.
1.10. The role of TPSC may be expanded and suitable
manpower and resources may be placed at its disposal to
enable it to ensure recruitment following the recruitment
principles mentioned above.
1.11. A new institution may be set up which may take up the
recruitments for all Group-B, C and D posts, excluding the posts
covered in Para 1.4 above. This body may function within the
broad principles proposed at Para 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. For this,
further follow up action may be taken by GA (P&T) Department.
2. All the above recommendations will be applicable with the
prospective effect only.
3. The General Guidelines for all Departments of the State
Government for selection of candidates by open interview for
Group-C and Group-D posts to be filled up by direct recruitment
11
issued vide Memorandum No.F.23(8)-GA(P&T)/14 dated 23rd
July, 2016 is hereby repealed and replaced by this Notification.
By the order of the Governor
Sd/-
(Santosh Das)
Additional Secretary
to the Government of Tripura.”
11. In the wake of the said policy, the State Government issued
a memorandum F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18 dated 20.08.2018
(hereinafter referred to as “Cancellation Memorandum”)
cancelling the recruitment processes which were ongoing
including that to the posts of TPS and TCS under the
Advertisement. In the said memorandum, one time age relaxation
to the candidates affected by the Cancellation Memorandum was
allowed. The said Cancellation Memorandum, as challenged, is
reproduced as under:
“NO.F. 20(1)-GA(P&T)/18
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURAGENERAL ADMINISTRATION (PERSONNEL & TRAINING)
DEPARTMENTDated, Agartala, the 20th August, 2018
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Recruitment/Selection process as per New
Recruitment Policy.
Attention is invited to this Department’s Memorandum of
even number dated 14.03.2018 wherein all the12
recruitment/selection processes were kept in abeyance w.e.f.
14.03.2018 until further orders.
2. The State Government has now notified a New
Recruitment Policy vide this Department’s Notification of even
number dated 05.06.2018. Accordingly, the Memorandum
issued vide No. F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18 dated 14.03.2018 now
stands superseded.
3. The competent authority in the State Government has
decided that in view of the New Recruitment Policy approved by
the Government, all new appointments should be made as per
the New Recruitment Policy and all existing recruitment
processes initiated by the respective Departments or the TPSC,
hereby, stand cancelled excepting ongoing recruitment of
Tripura Judicial Service Grade-III only for which specific
exemption has been accorded in consultation with the Hon’ble
High Court of Tripura.
4. As regards the candidates who had participated in the
cancelled recruitment processes, they are to be given one time
relaxation in upper age limit to enable them to participate once
in the fresh recruitment processes subject to providing
documentary evidence of their participation in the earlier
recruitment processes for the same post(s).
5. It is also directed that henceforth, all direct recruitment
should be made strictly as per guidelines contained in the New
Recruitment Policy issued vide Notification No.F.20(1)-
GA(P&T)/18 dated 05.06.2018 together with prior concurrence
of the Finance Department, the GA(P&T) Department and the
approval of the Council of Ministers.
6. All Departments are, therefore, advised to strictly comply
with these decisions.
Sd/-
(Vishwasree B)
Joint Secretary to
the Government of Tripura”
13
12. Being aggrieved by the Cancellation Memorandum dated
20.08.2018 and the NRP dated 05.06.2018, the candidates
ensued litigation by filing writ petitions seeking quashing thereof
and sought directions commanding the State of Tripura to
complete the process of recruitment of TCS Grade-II and TPS
Grade-II within a designated time frame.
13. The State of Tripura filed two counter affidavits before the
High Court resisting the claim of the candidates, inter-alia,
contending that the Abeyance Memorandum was issued since
review of the recruitment policy by the Government was
necessary and the NRP was notified on 05.06.2018 after such
review. As such, the Cancellation Memorandum directing to
cancel the pending selection process was issued in order to make
all future recruitment in compliance with the NRP. By filing
supplementary affidavit dated 14.02.2019, it is stated that such
an action of the State is to achieve impartial, lawful, fair and
transparent process of selection. Therefore, the State Government
has decided to cancel the existing recruitment policy,
substituting the same by a new policy in larger public interest. In
the context of the subject matter, the NRP provides that except in
exceptional cases, weightage of interview should not exceed 10%
14
of the total marks in respect of Group – ‘A’ posts. In view thereof,
it was contended that the pending process of selection to the TCS
Grade – II Group ‘A’ and TPS Grade – II Group ‘A’ has rightly been
cancelled issuing the Cancellation Memorandum.
FINDINGS OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
14. Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Tripura by
judgement dated 14.05.2019, allowed the writ petition, holding
that the executive notification cannot supersede statutory rules
and observed that cancellation of recruitment process lacked
valid justification. The Court also held that executive
instructions, namely NRP dated 05.06.2018 and Cancellation
Memorandum dated 20.08.2018, were subordinate to the rules
framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As the TCS
Rules and TPS Rules had not been amended by the competent
authority in consultation with TPSC, the cancellation of the
recruitment process, which was at an advanced stage, was
deemed to be without authority and was consequently quashed
insofar as it pertained to recruitment for the TCS Grade-II and
TPS Grade-II posts is concerned.
FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED DIVISION BENCH:
15
15. Learned Division Bench of the High Court refrained to
comment upon the policy parameters laid down by the State
Government, particularly in the form of NRP. The Division Bench
was only called upon to decide whether such policy change could
be applied to a process of selection which had advanced to the
stage of conducting written examination (Main Examination) of
those eligible candidates, who had passed the Preliminary
examination for the purpose of screening. The Court further
examined the issue as to whether the rules of the game could be
changed after the game had begun. While analysing those issues,
the Division Bench has referred to the TCS Rules and
Regulations as framed by the Governor after consultation with
the TPSC. The Division Bench proceeded to observe that as per
the rules and the amended regulations, Preliminary Examination
was conducted which was cleared by the candidates. Thereafter,
they had appeared in the Main Examination conducted in terms
of the Rules and Regulations. While concluding in reference to
preparation of result of the Preliminary and Main Examinations,
the said marks for interview (Personality Test) is 100 which may
come to the extent of 11% of the total marks. The NRP notified
that the marks for the interview were not to exceed 10% of total
16
marks which may not be a plausible change and cause for
cancellation of the pending selection process since it was
exceeding merely 1% from the ceiling of the new policy which
does not affect the process of selection which had travelled up to
an advanced stage. As such, the contention of the State to
sustain the Cancellation Memorandum has been repelled
observing inter-alia that no pressing grounds were demonstrated
for taking such a drastic measure for an insignificant departure
from the policy parameters. The Court further observed that
executive discretion cannot be allowed to intervene the selection
process midway by changing the very selection criteria. It is said
that such an action gives rise to uncertainty in public selection
process. The Court further proceeded to observe that such
application of policy may be mala-fide where the rules of selection
may be changed so as to include certain wanted or to eliminate
unwanted candidates. As such, the Court held that change of
criteria would amount to change of the rules of game, which is
arbitrary. Therefore, the finding of the Single Bench to set-aside
the Cancellation Memorandum insofar as it relates to the ongoing
recruitment process to the post of TCS and TPS under the
17
Advertisement was upheld while interference with the NRP dated
05.06.2018 was declined.
16. By filing a review petition, the State challenged the
judgment passed in the writ appeal. However, the review petition
was dismissed by the High Court on 13.01.2020. In its order, the
High Court distinguished the writ appeal judgment concerning
TCS and TPS (Grade-II, Group – ‘A’ Gazetted posts) from its
earlier decision in Sri Partha Das vs. State of Tripura & Others,
dated 03.10.2019, rendered in Writ Petition No. 946 of 2018 and
batch. The High Court observed that the said judgment in Partha
Das — which was subsequently challenged in Civil Appeal Nos.
4426–4466 of 2023 which was decided by a separate order — was
not applicable to the TCS and TPS Grade-II posts which are
Group – A posts. Accordingly, the judgment in Partha Das was
held to have no bearing on the issues involved in the present
matter.
CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF TRIPURA:
17. Col. R. Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel has
assiduously urged that the NRP dated 05.06.2018 was
introduced by the State Government to ensure transparency and
18
fairness in public appointments. The policy decision is based on
the executive discretion of the State, interference in such policy
decisions of the State should be minimal and is not warranted
unless such decision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In terms of the NRP, the marks of the
interview have been reduced and should not exceed 10% of the
total marks in the competitive examination. The said decision
cannot be said to be arbitrary and does not restrain the State
Government from cancelling the pending process of selection for
compliance with the said policy decision. The process of selection
was ongoing and only the main examination was conducted
without declaring the result. In such a situation, if cancellation of
the pending process as directed by the impugned notification is
brought about, it would not amount to change of rules of the
game midway. As such, it has also been submitted by the State
that mere participation in the recruitment process and
completion of the preliminary examination and the main
examination would not create any indefeasible right of
appointment in favour of the candidates as per the judgement of
this Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India5.
5 (1991) 3 SCC 47, 1991 INSC 120.
19
18. It is urged that the State Government, while cancelling the
examination, has clearly specified in the notification that age
relaxation shall be granted to the affected candidates. It is also
contended that the judgment in the case of Partha Das (Supra)
the application of NRP to an ongoing recruitment process was
upheld prior to the impugned judgment, the High Court
committed an error in taking a different view and not allowing
the review petition on the said ground. It is also submitted that
merely by qualifying the preliminary examination and appearing
in the main examination, the candidates do not acquire any
indefeasible right of appointment or to seek direction to complete
the process of selection and claim appointment on the basis of
existing rules ignoring the NRP. As such the present appeals
deserve to be allowed.
CONTENTIONS OF THE CANDIDATES:
19. On behalf of the candidates, during hearing, it was informed
that respondent No. 1, Samudra Debbarma in Civil Appeal Nos.
4467-4469 of 2023 is no longer pursuing the litigation as he has
20
secured employment elsewhere. The respondent No. 2 – Tripura
Public Service Commission (TPSC) was a proforma respondent,
which concurred with the submissions of the appellant – State.
As per the order of the Chamber Judge dated 29.07.2022, I.A. No.
148490 of 2021 being the application for impleadment filed by
candidates – similarly situated persons at par with Samudra
Debbarma was allowed and they were joined as respondent Nos.
3 to 13. Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned counsel appearing on their
behalf has advanced the arguments, inter-alia contending that
the recruitment for the posts of TCS and TPS is governed by the
rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India and the regulation promulgated in exercise of the power
conferred under Rule 6, notified by the Governor after
consultation with the TPSC. Therefore, the rules and the
regulations would come within the purview of subordinate
legislation. The NRP is a policy decision and in the nature of
executive instructions which cannot override the provisions of the
Rules and Regulations until amendment in rules and regulation
is made. As such, on the basis of the NRP, the rules of the game
cannot be changed midway in an ongoing recruitment process.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Tej
21
Prakash Pathak and Ors. vs. High Court of Rajasthan and
Ors.6 It is contended that the candidates who have passed the
Preliminary Examination and have appeared in the Main
Examination, will have legitimate expectation to succeed in the
process of selection. In support of the said contention, reliance is
placed on the case of Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. vs. High Court
of Kerala and Ors.7
20. In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that Cancellation
Memorandum cancelling the pending process of TCS and TPS
deserves to be quashed, maintaining the orders of the High Court
and dismissing the appeals filed by the State.
21. In Civil Appeal No. 4471 of 2023, it is contended that on
account of the stay granted by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
4467-4468 of 2023, the writ petition itself has not been decided
on merits, it was allowed and disposed of subject to final outcome
of the said Appeals, therefore, the judgment delivered on merit in
two batches of appeal shall follow in this case.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
6 (2025) 2 SCC 1, 2024 INSC 847.
7 (2024) 3 SCC 799, 2023 INSC 709.
22
22. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and
on perusal of the facts and material placed before us, the
following issues arise for consideration:
(1) Whether Abeyance Memorandum dated 14.03.2018 and
Cancellation Memorandum dated 20.08.2018,
purportedly issued in the wake of change in State policy
in larger public interest under executive instructions, and
resulting in the cancellation of the recruitment process as
specified in TCS and TPS Rules for the post of Grade-II,
Group ‘A’ gazetted after the conduct of the main
examination, are justified and have any sanction of
law?
(2) Whether the State’s decision to apply the NRP to an
ongoing recruitment process of Grade-II, Group ‘A’
gazetted posts in TCS and TPS under the pretext of
Cancellation Memorandum would amount to changing
the rules of the game after the game has begun, i.e., the
recruitment process has commenced?
(3) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
doctrine of legitimate expectation is attracted and if so,
what relief, if any, are the candidates entitled to?
23
ANALYSIS OF ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2:
Issue nos. 1 and 2 posed above are interlinked, hence, the
contentions are being dealt with and answered collectively.
23. The dispute in the present case revolves around the
challenge to the Abeyance Memorandum dated 14.03.2018, and
the Cancellation Memorandum dated 20.08.2018 pursuant to
applying the NRP dated 05.06.2018 to the ongoing recruitment
process for the post of TCS and TPS. The pertinent factual
backdrop leading to issuance of these memorandum needs to be
referred.
24. The Council of Ministers in exercise of Rule 20(2) of the
Rules of Executive Business of the Government of the State of
Tripura, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of Executive
Business”), on 10.03.2018, decided that the recruitment process
is required to be reviewed and pending such review, all ongoing
recruitment / selection processes in all Departments /
autonomous bodies etc. under the control of Government shall be
kept in abeyance. The Abeyance Memorandum was issued by the
General Administration (Personnel & Training) Department,
24
under the signature of the Additional Secretary to the
Government of Tripura.
25. While process of review was undertaken, the committee
recommended that for the recruitment of Group – ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’
posts conducted by the TPSC, the weightage for interview should
not exceed 10% of the total marks, it may only exceed 10% with
the approval of the cabinet, if sufficient justification exists. The
Review Committee pertinently made the recommendation that
recruitment rules need to be amended / revised in order to bring
about uniformity in posts and to facilitate common recruitment.
As a consequence, the NRP dated 05.06.2018 was notified for and
on behalf of the Governor of the State, styled as ‘New
Recruitment Policy for all establishments under the control of the
Government of Tripura’.
26. On 02.08.2018, the Council of Ministers, in furtherance to
the publication of the NRP, decided that all existing recruitment
processes (except for Tripura Judicial Service) whether
undertaken by the TPSC or the respective departments, will be
cancelled and all new appointments shall be made as per the
NRP, providing age relaxation to the participants of the ongoing
25
recruitment processes. The decision of the Council of Ministers
dated 02.08.2018 fructified in the form of the Cancellation
Memorandum dated 20.08.2018, whereby the ongoing
recruitment processes were cancelled in the above terms.
27. The meeting of the Council of Ministers dated 10.03.2018,
which is the inception of the series of events detailed above, was
conducted under the Rules of Executive Business in exercise of
the powers conferred under Article 166(2) and 166(3) of the
Constitution of India. As per the Second Schedule of the said
Rules read with Rules 8, 14 and 31, proposals for making or
amending rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of
service of persons appointed to the public service and posts in
connection with the State and proposals involving any important
change of policy or practice, are to be brought before the Council
of Ministers.
28. From the above conspectus, we can safely conclude that
NRP dated 05.06.2018 is an executive instruction of the State
under Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India after a meeting of
the Council of Ministers under Article 166(3). It was in the nature
of a policy decision to bring about a change in recruitment
26
process of the State. It did not have legislative backing, rather it
was a decision taken solely in exercise of the power vested in the
executive. As such, the Abeyance Memorandum and the
Cancellation Memorandum were also issued in exercise of the
executive power of the State Government in the shape of
executive orders.
Status of recruitment process of TCS and TPS
29. As discussed, the present appeals concern two categories of
posts, under the TCS and the TPS for Grade – II, Group ‘A’
Gazetted posts. A common advertisement was issued on
30.04.2016 and the recruitment process commenced. We have
examined the voluminous record and documents supplied by the
State pertaining to the recruitment process and without an iota
of doubt it can be said that significant progress had been made in
the recruitment process. The preliminary exam was conducted
and candidates who had qualified the preliminary examination
had already appeared in the main examination as discussed in
paragraph 9 of this judgement; but the result of the main
examination has not been declared.
27
30. As such, it is needless to observe, the process of
recruitment was not at a nascent stage. 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 had commenced and two
sets of examinations had already been completed.
Statutory Rules vs. Executive Order
31. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the recruitment
for TCS and TPS is conducted by TPSC under TCS and TPS Rules
respectively, which have been framed by the State in exercise of
power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India. The Governor has framed the Regulations in exercise of the
powers enshrined under Rule 6 thereof. On the date of the
issuance of the advertisement, Regulation 11 quoted in para 6
above held the field which prescribes that the recruitment
process will contain a preliminary examination carrying 200
marks, main examination carrying 800 marks and personality
test carrying 100 marks. On reading Regulation 11 it is clear that
the preliminary examination is only for short-listing the
candidates for the main examination and the marks secured in
28
the preliminary examination were not to be considered for final
selection. This stipulation was also reflected in the
advertisement, which mentioned that the final selection shall be
made in the order of merit on the basis of marks obtained in
main examination in aggregate, adding the marks obtained in the
personality test.
32. As per Cancellation Memorandum, the reasoning for
cancellation of the ongoing recruitment processes was to
implement the NRP. In the context of the present recruitment
process, it was to limit the marks for interview in recruitment for
Group – ‘A’ posts to maximum 10% of the total marks. In such a
factual situation, the ancillary question that arises for our
consideration is whether a policy decision in general, notified by
way of executive instructions, can override the mandate of the
TCS/TPS Rules and the Regulations framed thereunder.
33. While appreciating the said question in the facts as
discussed above, it must be observed that the recruitment for
TCS and TPS had been initiated and the main examination had
been conducted and only personality test was left. In the
meantime, legislative assembly elections were notified and after
29
election there was a change in the political landscape of the
State. Immediate on assuming the office by the new political
dispensation, a decision to review the recruitment process of all
departments was taken on the pretext of making the same more
fair, open and transparent. From the record of the selection or as
per averments of the State nothing can be elucidated as to why
the process existing at that point in time was not fair or
transparent. The entire process until it was put in abeyance had
been conducted under the TCS/TPS Rules and Regulations
framed thereunder, which have statutory backing. It is not
contended by the State that the pending recruitment process in
any way violated the provisions of the TCS/TPS Rules. In the said
context, it can be safely observed that if recruitment process is
carried out under the Rules framed and under the Regulations,
deviation was not permitted in the wake of the policy decision of
the government by way of executive instructions, otherwise it
would amount to overriding the recruitment process carried out
under the Rules. For clarity, it is to be observed that where the
subject and the field is occupied by the rules, the executive
instructions cannot supplant the same; they can only
supplement, otherwise it would render the act done under the
30
rules as void. It cannot be lost sight that Regulation 11 has a
statutory backing prescribing 800 marks for main examination
and 100 marks for interview (apart from 200 marks for
preliminary examination). No amendment has been brought
either in the Rules or in the Regulations yet. In such
circumstances, merely because of a policy decision in the form of
NRP, the recruitment process which was at the verge of
completion cannot be cancelled.
34. The TCS/TPS Rules are rules framed under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule-making power
under said proviso is said to be an exercise of ‘legislative’ power
as opposed to ‘executive’ power since Legislature is competent to
exercise. Meaning thereby that, these are statutory rules in the
nature of subordinate legislation. This Court has had the
occasion to examine similar legal issue in multiple cases. The
Constitution Bench of this Court in Sant Ram Sharma vs. State
of Rajasthan8, while dealing with an office memorandum of the
Central Government in respect of promotion under the All India
Services Act, 1951 and the Indian Police Service (Fixation of
Seniority) Rules, 1954 held: –
8 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16, 1967 INSC 167.
31
“7. We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr N.C.
Chatterjee that in the absence of any statutory rules governing
promotions to selection grade posts the Government cannot
issue administrative instructions and such administrative
instructions cannot impose any restrictions not found in the
Rules already framed. We are unable to accept this argument as
correct. It is true that there is no specific provision in the Rules
laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade
officers to selection grade posts. But that does not mean that till
statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot
issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be
followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection
grade posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or
supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if
the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill
up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions
not inconsistent with the rules already framed.”
35. In State of Haryana vs. Shamsher Jang Bahadur9, this
Court held that where qualifications are already prescribed in the
rules framed under Article 309, the same may not be altered by
means of an executive instruction. The relevant portion of the
said judgement is reproduced as thus: –
“7. It may be noted that herein we are dealing only with those
who were promoted from the cadre of clerks in the Secretariat.
The first question arising for decision is whether the
Government was competent to add by means of administrative
instructions to the qualifications prescribed under the Rules
framed under Article 309. The High Court and the courts below
have come to the conclusion that the Government was
incompetent to do so. This Court has ruled in Sant Ram
Shama v. State of Rajasthan [(1968) 1 SCR 111] that while the
Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by
administrative instructions, if the rules are silent on any
particular point, the Government can fill up the gaps and9 (1972) 2 SCC 188, 1972 INSC 116.
32
supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent
with the rules already framed. Hence we have to see whether
the instructions with which we are concerned, so far as relate to
the clerks in the Secretariat amend or they alter the conditions
of service prescribed by the rules framed under Article 309.
Undoubtedly the instructions issued by the Government add to
those qualifications. By adding to the qualifications already
prescribed by the rules, the Government has really altered the
existing conditions of service. The instructions issued by the
Government undoubtedly affects the promotion of concerned
officials and therefore they relate to their conditions of service.
The Government is not competent to alter the rules framed
under Article 309 by means of administrative instructions. We
are unable to agree with the contention of the State that by
issuing the instructions in question, the Government had merely
filled up a gap in the rules. The rules can be implemented
without any difficulty. We see no gap in the rules.”
36. In S.B. Patwardhan and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors.10, it was held that merely because executive
instructions affecting conditions of service are issued ‘by order
and in the name of Governor’ they cannot be considered as rules
under Article 309 or its proviso, but those are only executive
instructions issued under Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced as thus:
–
“26. It is common ground that except the Bombay Rules
dated September 21, 1939 and the Gujarat Notification dated
August 21, 1965 the rest of the rules are in the nature of
executive instructions. The Rules of 1941, 1960, 1963, 1965
and 1970 were not framed by the State Government concerned
in the exercise of constitutional or statutory power. The Rules of10 (1977) 3 SCC 399, 1977 INSC 141.
33
1960 and 1970 were issued “By order and in the name of the
Governor”, but that does not lend support to the construction
faintly suggested on behalf of the direct recruits that the two
sets of rules must be deemed to have been made under Article
309 of the Constitution. All executive action of the Government
of a State is required by Article 166 of the Constitution to be
taken in the name of the Governor. The appeals have therefore
to be disposed of on the basis that except for the Bombay rules
dated September 21, 1939 and the Gujarat Notification dated
August 21, 1965 the remaining rules, whether of recruitment or
of seniority, are in the nature of executive instructions. These
instructions, unlike rules regulating recruitment and conditions
of service framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution or Section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act,
1935, cannot have any retrospective effect.”
37. In P.D. Aggarwal and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.11, this
Court relied upon the judgement in Sant Ram Sharma (Supra)
and held: –
“20. The office memorandum dated December 7, 1961
which purports to amend the United Provinces Service of
Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936 in
our opinion cannot override, amend or supersede statutory
rules. This memorandum is nothing but an administrative order
or instruction and as such it cannot amend or supersede the
statutory rules by adding something therein as has been
observed by this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of
Rajasthan [AIR 1967 SC 1910 : (1968) 1 SCR 111 : (1968) 2
LLJ 830] . Moreover the benefits that have been conferred on
the temporary Assistant Engineers who have become members
of the service after being selected by the Public Service
Commission in accordance with the service rules are entitled to
have their seniority reckoned in accordance with the provisions
of Rule 23 as it was then, from the date of their becoming
member of the service, and this cannot be taken away by giving
retrospective effect to the rules of 1969 and 1971 as it is
arbitrary, irrational and not reasonable.”11 (1987) 3 SCC 622, 1987 INSC 163.
34
38. In K. Kuppusamy and Anr. vs. State of T.N. and Ors. 12,
while dealing with a similar legal issue, this Court held that
administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules
merely because the government has indicated a decision to bring
about an amendment in the rules in the future. The relevant
portion of the said judgement is reproduced as thus: –
“3. The short point on which these appeals must succeed is
that the Tribunal fell into an error in taking the view that since
the Government had indicated its intention to amend the
relevant rules, its action in proceeding on the assumption of
such amendment could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary
and, therefore, the consequential orders passed have to be
upheld. We are afraid this line of approach cannot be
countenanced. The relevant rules, it is admitted, were framed
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. They are
statutory rules. Statutory rules cannot be overridden by
executive orders or executive practice. Merely because the
Government had taken a decision to amend the rules does not
mean that the rule stood obliterated. Till the rule is amended,
the rule applies. Even today the amendment has not been
effected. As and when it is effected ordinarily it would be
prospective in nature unless expressly or by necessary
implication found to be retrospective. The Tribunal was,
therefore, wrong in ignoring the rule.”
39. This Court made a luculent pronouncement in Ajaya
Kumar Das vs. State of Orissa and Ors. 13, that rules made
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be tinkered
12 (1998) 8 SCC 469.
13 (2011) 11 SCC 136, 2009 INSC 978.
35
by the administrative orders. The relevant paragraphs of this
judgement are quoted herein below: –
“14. Neither the Circular dated 18-6-1982 nor the
subsequent Circular dated 19-3-1983 modifying the earlier
Circular dated 18-6-1982 can override the statutory provision
contained in Rule 74(b) of the Code if it results in reduction of
pay of the employee on promotion. That the Orissa Service Code
has been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India
is not in dispute. It is well settled that the statutory rules
framed under Article 309 of the Constitution can be amended
only by a rule or notification duly made under Article 309 and
not otherwise. Whatever be the efficacy of the executive orders
or circulars or instructions, statutory rules cannot be altered or
amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions
nor can they replace the statutory rules. The Rules made under
Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be tinkered by the
administrative instructions or circulars.”
40. In Bank of Baroda and Anr. vs. G. Palani and Ors.14,
where an executive instruction by the name of ‘joint note’ was
issued to change pensionary benefits provided to the employees
under Banking Companies Act, 1970 and Regulations of 1995
made u/s 19 of the Act, it was held that such an executive
instruction cannot supplant the provisions of the statute. The
relevant paragraph is reproduced below: –
“14. First we come to the rigour of the regulations, the
regulations have statutory force, having framed in exercise of
the powers under section 19(2)(f) of the 1970 Act and are
binding. They could not have been supplanted by any executive
fiat, order or joint note, which has no statutory basis. The joint
note of the officers also had no statutory force behind it and
14 (2022) 5 SCC 612.
36
could not have obliterated any of the provisions of 1970 act or
the existing regulations. Thus, joint notes could not have taken
away the rights that were available under the 1995
regulations.”
41. Recently, in R. Ranjith Singh and Ors. vs. State of Tamil
Nadu and Ors.15, where service rules were framed under the
State Act and the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India and various government orders were issued by the State
without amending the Rules to give 20% reservation to in-service
candidates in direct recruitment posts and for maintenance of
their seniority, it was held by this Court that the government
orders had the effect of supplanting the statutory rules instead of
supplementing them, which is not permissible. This Court noted
as follows: –
“19….The State Government has certainly issued various
executive directions from time to time for appointment under the
direct recruitment quota providing reservation to in-service
candidates to the extent of 20%; however, the rules were never
amended till 21.11.2017. It is a well settled proposition of law
that executive instructions cannot supplant the statutory rules.
They can supplement/clarify the statutory rules. In the present
case, the executive instructions issued from time to time have in
fact supplanted the statutory rules and such a process is
unheard of in the field of service jurisprudence.”
42. Applying the above principles of law, it can safely be
concluded that executive instructions issued under Article 166(1)
of the Constitution of India cannot override the act done under
15 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1009, 2025 INSC 612.
37
TCS/TPS Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and the Regulations framed thereunder. The
executive instructions can be used to supplement the rules in
case of ambiguity or if gaps are to be filled but such executive
instructions cannot supplant the specific provisions of the
TCS/TPS Rules which already occupy the field. It is not the case
of the government that to fill the gaps and to supplement the
TCS/TPS Rules, NRP is relevant. In absence thereof, in our view,
the action of the government cancelling the process of
recruitment for TCS and TPS midway is not justified and is
arbitrary. It is further relevant to discuss that the pretext which
has been taken to issue the Cancellation Memorandum is the
NRP dated 05.06.2018. The said policy is based on the
recommendation of the three-member committee constituted by
the State Government to review recruitment policy across the
State and of all its departments. The recommendations of the
committee were plain and specific, inter-alia, observing that “all
the above recommendations will be applicable with prospective
effect only”. In addition to the discussions, in absence of the
statutory backing to the policy, the recommendations as made
limiting the marks of interview at worst would apply
38
prospectively. Meaning thereby, it shall not apply to the
recruitment process for TCS and TPS which had started way back
in April 2016 and the preliminary as well as main examination
has already been conducted. Hence, application of the policy
decision on the pending recruitment process is contrary to clause
(2) of the said policy.
Plea of Larger Public Interest:
43. It is vehemently argued that the issuance of the Abeyance
and Cancellation Memorandum is because of change required
and to make the process fair, transparent in larger public
interest. It is nowhere specified as to how due to NRP, larger
public interest can be achieved. After bestowing our
consideration, indeed it can be observed that the executive does
have a discretion to bring new policy and to implement the same
applying the rule of law. Once the process of the recruitment is
notified following the subordinate legislation, such general policy
cannot occupy the field which is already occupied by the
provisions of the statutory rules.
44. Regulation 11 vividly indicates that the interview should be
of how many marks. As such the same cannot be supplanted by
39
NRP which is in the form of executive instructions and to relyupon the said decision, cancellation of the process of recruitment
by issuing Cancellation Memorandum is not justified. In our view,
the claim that the policy decision was in larger public interest is
wholly unjustified, rather it is antithetical to public interest. On
the basis of the stand taken and the material placed, in our
considered opinion, the State has miserably failed to discharge
the burden to substantiate that the decision of the cancellation of
the recruitment process was in larger public interest.
Change of rules of the game after the game has begun:
45. The recruitment process under the advertisement for
TCS/TPS commenced on the date of its issuance. At the cost of
repetition and as discussed above, much water had flown. The
TPSC had taken active and tangible steps to conduct the
preliminary examination and the main examination under the
TCS/TPS Rules and Regulations. After all this, by issuing the
Cancellation Memorandum, effectively setting the clock back and
putting the entire process at nought, under the garb of policy
decision is arbitrary.
40
46. This Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra) has affirmed the
decision in K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. and Anr. 16, and held
that the recruiting authority can devise a procedure for selection
only in absence of rules to the contrary, however the same should
be done prior to commencement of the recruitment process. The
relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced as thus: –
“52. Thus, in our view, the appointing
authority/recruiting authority/competent authority, in absence
of rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a
candidate suitable to the post and while doing so it may also
set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process
including written examination and interview. However, if any
such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the
commencement of the recruitment process. But if the extant
Rules or the advertisement inviting applications empower the
competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of the
recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be set any
time before that stage is reached so that neither the candidate
nor the evaluator/examiner/interviewer is taken by surprise.”
47. In the present case, the Regulations framed under the
TCS/TPS Rules, which in turn are framed under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, have clearly laid down the
specific marking criteria – 800 marks for main examination and
100 marks for interview (personality test), which are to be
considered for the purpose of final selection. Here, the effect of
16 (2008) 3 SCC 512, 2008 INSC 195.
41
NRP is such that by an administrative instruction, the
Regulations have been rewritten, which is not permissible.
48. The Constitution bench in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra) has
also clarified that the procedure prescribed in the extant rules
cannot be violated and administrative instructions can only be
used to supplement and fill the gap in the Rules, they cannot be
used to supplant the rules completely. The relevant portion of
the said judgement is reproduced as thus: –
“62. There can therefore be no doubt that where there are
no rules or the rules are silent on the subject, administrative
instructions may be issued to supplement and fill in the gaps in
the rules. In that event administrative instructions would govern
the field provided they are not ultra vires the provisions of the
rules or the statute or the Constitution. But where the rules
expressly or impliedly cover the field, the recruiting body would
have to abide by the rules.”
49. In the present case, on the strength of a general policy
decision of the State, an ongoing recruitment process is first put
in abeyance and later cancelled, with intent to implement the
NRP, though preliminary and main examinations have already
been conducted as per Rules. The very application of the 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 TCS/TPS Rules or in Regulations, the recruitment
42
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, i.e., the recruitment process has commenced.
Thirdly, as per clause (2) of the NRP, the recommendation to limit
the interview marks for Group – ‘A’ posts to 10% of total marks
would only apply prospectively, in case, rules are amended, which
would not mean to apply the same on ongoing recruitment
process. As such Issues 1 and 2 are answered in the above terms.
ISSUE NO. 3
Legitimate expectation and indefeasible right
50. Another aspect of the matter is the question as to whether
any absolute right of appointment or legitimate expectation has
accrued in favour of the candidates who participated in the
recruitment process. If so, whether cancellation of the
recruitment process would impinge upon such legitimate
expectation.
51. On the said issue, the State has placed heavy reliance on
the judgement in Shankarsan Dash (Supra) to argue that mere
participation in the selection process would not create an
43
indefeasible right for appointment in favour of the candidates. On
the other side, the candidates have placed reliance on
Sivanandan C.T. (Supra) to argue that they have a legitimate
expectation to be appointed after having participated in the
recruitment process.
52. It is trite law, and no contest can be made in respect of the
settled proposition that mere participation in the recruitment
process or placement in a select list would not create an
indefeasible right to be appointed, even if vacancies are available.
The judgement in Shankarsan Dash (Supra) has been followed
subsequently in a plethora of decisions of this Court. The
relevant portion of Shankarsan Dash (Supra) is quoted
hereinafter:
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are
notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates
are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible
right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied.
Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to
qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their
selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the
relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no
legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does
not mean that the State has the license of acting in an arbitrary
manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken
bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any
of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the
recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.”44
53. It is clear from a plain reading of the above judgement that
State may choose not to appoint a person who has been placed
on the select list. This was the specific decision of this Court also
in State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and
Ors.17, subsequently clarified in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra)
where a select list of 40 candidates was drawn up, but against 15
vacancies available, only 7 appointments were made. In that
context, it was held that mere placement on the select list would
not create an obligation for the State to fill up all the vacancies
and make appointments, since no indefeasible right of
appointment has accrued in favour of the candidates.
Simultaneously, it is said that the action of the State should not
be arbitrary and the decision taken for not filling the vacancies
must be bona fide.
54. However, 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
17 (1974) 3 SCC 220
45
fairness and equality. It was held in Sivanandan C.T. (Supra)
and later clarified in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra) that in order to
frustrate the legitimate expectation of candidates the burden is
on the State by placing relevant material to objectively
demonstrate that the decision taken by it was in the larger public
interest and not arbitrary. Relevant excerpts from the
Constitution bench decision in Sivanandan C.T. (Supra) have
been quoted below: –
“40. The principle of fairness in action requires that
public authorities be held accountable for their representations,
since the State has a profound impact on the lives of citizens.
Good administration requires public authorities to act in a
predicable manner and honour the promises made or practices
established unless there is a good reason not to do so. In
Nadarajah [R. (Nadarajah) v. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt.,
2005 EWCA Civ 1363] , Laws, L.J. held that the public
authority should objectively justify that there is an overriding
public interest in denying a legitimate expectation. We are of the
opinion that for a public authority to frustrate a claim of
legitimate expectation, it must objectively demonstrate by
placing relevant material before the court that its decision was
in the public interest. This standard is consistent with the
principles of good administration which require that State
actions must be held to scrupulous standards to prevent misuse
of public power and ensure fairness to citizens.
xx xx xx xx
45. The underlying basis for the application of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation has expanded and evolved to
include the principles of good administration. Since citizens
repose their trust in the State, the actions and policies of the
State give rise to legitimate expectations that the State will
adhere to its assurance or past practice by acting in a
consistent, transparent, and predictable manner. The principles46
of good administration require that the decisions of public
authorities must withstand the test of consistency,
transparency, and predictability to avoid being regarded as
arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.”
55. In the present case, it is not that the State has decided to
fill only some of the vacancies. Rather it has decided to do away
with the recruitment process altogether. It goes without saying
that the State’s decision not to appoint a person must not be
arbitrary and must be rooted in objective reasoning. The
recruitment process, especially when it is conducted under the
strength of statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India, 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.
56. As discussed above, the State has failed to prove that the
decision to apply the NRP to the ongoing recruitment process was
in larger public interest – as such, the legitimate expectation of
fairness in the recruitment process must be upheld.
57. From the discussion made hereinabove and in the facts of
this case, the candidates have participated in the process of
47
recruitment conducted in furtherance to the TCS/TPS Rules and
Regulations framed thereunder. Undisputedly, they have cleared
the preliminary examination and also participated in the main
examination. It was only at the stage of declaration of results of
the main examination the said process was kept in abeyance,
later cancelled applying the NRP which could not have been made
applicable to the ongoing recruitment process. The application of
the NRP to the ongoing recruitment process for the TCS and TPS
was in fact arbitrary and unjust. Therefore, the candidates do
have a legitimate expectation of completion of recruitment
process in a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary manner. As such,
the recruitment process should be concluded following TCS/TPS
Rules and Regulations and the candidates may be appointed if
they found place in merit. The Issue no. 3 is answered
accordingly.
58. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we dismiss
Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-68 and 4469 of 2023 and the Civil Appeal
No. 4471 of 2023 is disposed of in terms of this order. The
direction of the learned Single Judge as confirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgements in
Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-68 of 2023 and 4469 of 2023 are
48
maintained. It is directed that the process of recruitment for TCS
and TPS Grade-II shall now be finalized and completed by
declaring the results of the main examination and conducting
personality test following the provisions of the TCS/TPS Rules
and Regulations within a period of four months.
59. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….…………….…………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
…….…………….…………J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 28th 2025.
49
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4470 OF 2023
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ARUNABHA SAHA & ANR. ....RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura dated
25.08.20201, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge
dated 05.08.20192, whereby cancellation of the ongoing
recruitment process for the post of Inspector of Boilers (Group-A
Gazetted) in Factories and Boilers Organization under the Labour
Department, Government of Tripura, (hereinafter referred to as
“Inspector of Boilers”) was set aside.
1 W.A. No. 196 of 2019
2 W.P. (C) No. 186 of 2019
1
2. In the instant appeal, the dispute revolves around the
appointment and subsequent cancellation of recruitment process
for the post of Inspector of Boilers. The recruitment to this post is
governed by the Boilers Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as
“Boilers Act”), wherein Section 2(c) defines a Chief Inspector,
Deputy Chief Inspector and Inspector as a person appointed to be
as Chief Inspector, a Deputy Chief Inspector, and an Inspector
under the Act. Section 28 confers power on the Central Boilers
Board to make regulations consistent with the provisions of the
Boilers Act. Section 28A confers powers on the Central
Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Boilers
Act, which includes power to make rules with respect to the
qualifications and experience of persons to be appointed as
Inspector of Boilers. Section 29 confers power on the State
Government to make the rules consistent with the provisions of
the Boilers Act and regulations thereunder for the purpose as
specified in the section.
3. In furtherance to the powers under Section 28A, the Central
Government promulgated Chief Inspector, Deputy Chief Inspector
and Inspector (Qualification and Experience) Rules, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as “Central Rules”) wherein the
2
minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Inspector
of Boilers have been laid down. Similarly, in exercise of power
under Section 29 of the Boilers Act read with proviso to Article
309 of Constitution of India, State Government in consultation
with Tripura State Public Service Commission (hereinafter
referred to as “TPSC”) enacted the Rules called the ‘Recruitment
Rules, 2013’ (hereinafter referred to as “State Rules”) for the
post of Inspector of Boilers under Labour Department (Factories
and Boilers Organization) (hereinafter referred to as “Labour
Department”). The State Rules classify the Inspector of Boilers
as Group – ‘A’ Gazetted post and regulate its method of
recruitment. Rule 4 deals with ‘method of recruitment, age limit,
qualification and other matters’ which shall as be as specified in
columns 5 to 13 of the Schedule appended to the State Rules.
The Schedule specifies that the post of Inspector of Boilers shall
be filled by direct recruitment by the State Government through
TPSC unless exemption is granted.
FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE MATTER:
4. The present case has its inception on 29.12.2016 when the
Labour Department sent a requisition to TPSC for selection of
3
candidates on 2 posts of Inspector of Boilers. Consequently,Advertisement No. 01/2017 was notified by the TPSC on
05.01.2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Advertisement”). As per
TPSC, out of 126 applications, 36 candidates were called for
written screening test on 21.08.2017, out of which only 30
candidates appeared. Finally, 7 candidates were declared
successful including respondent no.1, and were called for
personality test/interview on 07.12.2017. Accordingly, the
interview took place, however, results were not declared.
5. While the recruitment process was ongoing, State of Tripura
was busy with State Assembly elections, wherein a new
government was elected on 03.03.2018, changing the political
landscape of the State. Thereafter, on 14.03.2018, the State
Government issued a memorandum no. F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18
(hereinafter referred to as “Abeyance Memorandum”) stating
that a decision has been taken by State Government to review the
recruitment process of the Government, in furtherance of which,
all the ongoing recruitment by all the departments/autonomous
bodies under Government were to be kept in abeyance until
further orders. Subsequent to this, 3 days later, on 17.03.2018,
TPSC wrote to Labour Department seeking its views as to
4
whether the results of personality test/interview conducted inrecruitment process for the post of Inspector of Boiler ought to be
declared by TPSC or deferred in light of the Abeyance
Memorandum. The Labour Department on 29.03.2018 reverted
with the opinion to keep the results pending.
6. While the results were kept in abeyance, on 05.06.2018, the
State Government vide notification no. F-20(1)-GA(P&T)/18,
issued a new recruitment policy (hereinafter referred to as
“NRP”) applicable to all the establishments under the
administrative control of the State Government. For ready
reference, the same is reproduced hereunder:
“1.4. The Group A, Group-B and C posts which are at present
covered by TPSC will continue to be filled as per the existing
practice. However, weightage for the interview should not
exceed 10% of total marks. In exceptional case weightage of
interview may be increased beyond 10% with the approval of
cabinet, if sufficient justification exists.”
7. Consequently, on 20.08.2018, the Government vide
memorandum no. F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18 (hereinafter referred to as
“Cancellation Memorandum”) directed that in the wake of the
NRP, the State Government has decided to cancel all ongoing
recruitment processes initiated by the respective departments
5
and TPSC, and all new appointments shall be made as per theNRP.
8. Subsequently, on 22.11.2018, TPSC issued a notification
cancelling the subject recruitment process for the post of
Inspector of Boilers. The respondent no.1, by filing W.P. (C) No.
186 of 2019, challenged the Cancellation Memorandum and the
TPSC notification dated 22.11.2018. He further sought a
declaration that NRP is not applicable in any manner whatsoever
on the present ongoing recruitment process and sought a
direction for completing the recruitment process by fixing a
defined time limit.
FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
9. Learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 05.08.2019
allowed the writ petition and quashed the Cancellation
Memorandum, as well as TPSC notification dated 22.11.2018 to
the extent of their applicability to the post of Inspector of Boilers.
The Court observed that the factual matrix and legal issues
involved herein were squarely covered by its earlier Single Bench
judgment dated 14.05.2019 in Samudra Debbarma v. State of
Tripura, W.P. (C) No. 831 of 2018 (upheld with modification by
6
Division Bench on 03.12.2019 in W.A. No. 142 of 2019, which is
also challenged in connected Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-4468 of
2023 titled as State of Tripura and Anr. vs. Samudra
Debbarma and Ors.). It was observed that recruitment rules
cannot be changed midway once the recruitment process has
begun. Further, where a recruitment is governed by a
subordinate legislation enacted under the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution of India, then no executive instructions can
override it, unless an amendment is made in that legislation. The
Court further observed that once a candidate applies for
recruitment pursuant to an advertisement under the then
existing rules, he acquires a right to be considered for selection
under those rules, unless any amendment is brought to the rules
that is retrospective in nature. As the NRP is consciously given
prospective effect, hence it is not applicable on the subject
recruitment process. The Court directed the State to complete the
selection process and publish the results and make
recommendations within a period of two months from the date of
the judgment. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was
assailed before Division Bench in writ appeal, which has been
dismissed by the impugned order.
7
FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT:
10. The Division Bench vide judgment dated 25.08.2020 upheld
the judgment of the Single Bench on the ground that the issues
in the present case are similar to those in Samudra Debbarma’s
case (supra), and these have been dealt with accordingly and
rightly so. Hence, there is no reason to allow the appeal of the
State.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENT:
11. Learned senior counsel for appellants has assiduously
urged that the NRP dated 05.06.2018 was introduced to promote
transparency and fairness in public appointments in larger
public interest. This policy decision, rooted in executive
discretion, aimed to address concerns of subjectivity in the
selection process and was uniformly applied across all the
departments. Such decisions are not open to judicial interference,
unless shown to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In the present case, the process of selection
was ongoing as the interview was conducted and no results were
declared. It was also contended that here the entire recruitment
8
process was cancelled in pursuance of the NRP, hence, no rulesof game have been changed after the game has begun.
12. The appellants submitted that in the present case, out of
total 200 marks, interview was conducted carrying 100 marks,
which constituted 50% weightage, which was excessive and
susceptible to subjectivity and manipulation. The NRP was
introduced precisely to remedy this issue and bring uniformity in
the selection process. Thus, such cancellation cannot be said to
be arbitrary.
13. It was further contended that respondent no. 1 does not
have any indefeasible right to be appointed as it is open to State
Government to not select such candidate even if he makes it in
the final merit list. Here, there was no select list in the first place.
Furthermore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation and
promissory estoppel will not be applicable.
14. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1
contented that pursuant to the advertisement, the respondent no.
1 applied for the post and participated in the recruitment
process. He went through a screening test, a written test and
then an interview. All of this was done in accordance with the
9
statutory rules framed under the Boilers Act and proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which has not been
disputed by the State. Thus, cancellation of such recruitment
process by Cancellation Memorandum on pretext of the NRP and
further cancellation by TPSC without making any amendment to
the statutory rules is invalid, arbitrary and illegal. It was
contended that once a recruitment process has begun, its rules
cannot be changed midway through executive instructions, i.e.,
the NRP and Cancellation Memorandum.
15. It was also contended that prior to bringing any change by
the State Government, particularly in respect of the post of
Inspector of Boilers, TPSC is required to be consulted, which was
not done in the present case. Therefore, the NRP is inapplicable
in the subject recruitment process.
16. It was also contended that as per clause (2) of the NRP, it is
applicable prospectively. Therefore, it cannot be applied to an
ongoing recruitment process. There is no express provision in the
NRP which indicates its retrospective application on the ongoing
recruitment processes. Therefore, the Division Bench has rightly
dismissed the appeal filed by appellants.
10
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the writ appeal filed by
the State had been dismissed relying upon the Division Bench
judgment dated 03.12.2019 passed in the case of Samudra
Debbarma in W.A. No. 142 of 2019, which is also under challenge
in connected Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-4468 of 2023. The said Civil
Appeals have been dismissed by a judgment pronounced by us
today. In summary, in the said judgment, we have held as follows:
i. Once the field is occupied by subordinate legislation,
executive instructions cannot override the same. They
may only supplement, but not supplant the extant
rules.
ii. The NRP could not have been applied to the ongoing
recruitment process since it would amount to change
of rules of the game after the game has begun.
iii. State could not discharge its burden to prove that the
application of NRP to the ongoing recruitment process
was in larger public interest.
11
iv. While candidates do not have any indefeasible right to
be appointed merely by participating in the
recruitment process, they do have a legitimate
expectation of completion of recruitment process in a
fair and non-arbitrary manner.
v. As per Clause (2) of the NRP, it is applicable
prospectively and would not apply to the ongoing
recruitment processes.
18. As the legal issues involved in the present case are squarely
covered by Samudra Debbarma’s case (Supra), the reasoning in
that case will apply to all the issues involved herein in this case
also. The operative part of Samudra Debbarma (Supra) is
reproduced herein below:
“In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we dismiss Civil
Appeal Nos. 4467-68 and 4469 of 2023 and the Civil Appeal
No. 4471 of 2023 is disposed of in terms of this order. The
direction of the Single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench
of the High Court in the impugned judgements in Civil Appeal
Nos. 4467-68 of 2023 and 4469 of 2023 are maintained. It is
further directed that the recruitment for TCS and TPS Grade II
shall now be finalized and completed by the State after
declaring the results of the main examination and conducting
personality test following the provisions of the TCS/TPS Rules
and Regulations within a period of four months.”
19. As such, we are not inclined to deal with all the similar
issues separately in the present case. The candidates participated
12
in the recruitment process carried out under the Boilers Act read
with the Central Rules and State Rules. After issuance of
advertisement, a written screening test was conducted on
21.08.2017, pursuant to which selected candidates, including
respondent no. 1 were called for interview on 07.12.2017. Thus,
only the result of the interview was left to be declared. As such
the recruitment process for the post of ‘Inspector of Boilers’ was
at a significantly advanced stage when the recruitment process
was kept in abeyance, later cancelled by the Cancellation
Memorandum and TPSC notification dated 22.11.2018. The
application of the NRP to the ongoing recruitment process was
arbitrary and unjust and candidates do have a legitimate
expectation of completion of the recruitment process in a fair and
non-arbitrary manner. It is pointed out by the appellant – State
that in the facts of this case, in the Boilers Act, Central Rules or
the State Rules or even in the Advertisement, there is no
prescription of marks to be obtained in the written test or the
interview, but the fact remains that the written test was already
conducted out of 100 marks and the interview was also
conducted out of 100 marks. As such, the subsequent decision to
apply NRP to the said recruitment process cannot be sustained.
13
The recruitment should be completed as per the Boilers Act,
Central Rules and State Rules, and the candidates may be
appointed, if found to be meritorious, subject to fulfilling all other
criteria.
20. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present
Civil Appeal is dismissed, and the direction of the Single Judge as
confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
impugned judgment is maintained. It is further directed that the
recruitment for ‘Inspector of Boilers’ shall now be finalized and
completed by the State within a period of two months.
21. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….…………….…………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
…….…………….…………J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 28th 2025.
14
[ad_1]
Source link