YOGESH BALKRISHNA SARKATE AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Prohibition on Changing Selection Criteria and "Rules of the Game" Midway through Public Recruitment - Post-Facto Application of Unspecified Weightage Held Arbitrary and Unconstitutional under Article 14.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:11519-DB
Decision Date: 17-03-2026
List of Laws
The Constitution of India, 1850 (Article 14 and Article 16); Service Law (Recruitment and Selection Process); Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation; Administrative Law (Rule against Arbitrariness)
- Facts: The Respondent No. 2, Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. (MSPGCL), issued Advertisement No. 01/2023 for the post of Junior Officer (Security). The advertisement prescribed a selection process consisting of an Online Test (120 marks) and a Physical Efficiency Test (PET) & Psychometric Test (40 marks), totaling 160 marks. The Petitioners participated and secured total marks of 133 and 108, respectively. However, while preparing the final select list, the Respondents applied a new "weightage metric" of 50% to the Online Test and 50% to the PET/Psychometric Test. This change in the evaluation method resulted in the Petitioners being moved to the waitlist, while candidates with lower aggregate marks (Respondents 4 to 7) were selected based on the weighted scores.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioners approached the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to set aside the modified selection process and to issue appointment orders based on the original terms of the advertisement.
- Issue: Whether a recruiting authority can validly apply a weightage criteria to different stages of an examination after the marks have been obtained and the selection process has commenced, when such weightage was not specified in the original recruitment advertisement?
- Holding: No, the recruiting authority cannot change the selection criteria midway or after the process has commenced. The Court held that applying unspecified weightage after the marks are known is arbitrary and violates the "rules of the game".
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the advertisement clearly indicated that selection would be based on the scores obtained in both tests, without mentioning any specific weightage. By applying a 50:50 weightage post-facto, the Respondents exercised an arbitrary discretion that altered the final merit position to the detriment of more meritorious candidates. Relying on Supreme Court precedents like "Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court" and "K. Manjushree vs. State of AP", the Court applied the doctrine that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed after the game has started or played. Such action violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that a recruitment process must be transparent, and candidates have a legitimate expectation that the criteria notified at the commencement will be strictly followed.
🔒 For Members Only