Upholds ban on changing selection rules after exam, protects candidates’ rights nationwide
FIRDOUS AHMAD
SRINAGAR, Dec 8: In a resounding verdict that reinforces the bedrock principles of fairness and transparency in public employment, the Supreme Court of India has delivered the final chapter in a legal saga spanning nearly two decades, originating from a 2004 recruitment drive for Foresters in Jammu & Kashmir. The judgment, dated November 26, 2025, not only brings closure to the affected candidates but also slams the door shut on recruiting authorities attempting to alter the “rules of the game” after candidates have finished playing.
The story began in September 2004, when the Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB) advertised 38 posts of Foresters. The minimum qualification was 10+2 with science, but to distinguish candidates, the Board prescribed a 100-point selection criteria. This included a significant 25-point bonus for candidates possessing an additional B.Sc. degree in Forestry, a criterion that did not differentiate between three-year and four-year degree courses. Eligible candidates, including those with the three-year B.Sc. Forestry degree, successfully cleared the required physical and height tests and proceeded to attend interviews, all conducted under this announced point system.
The controversy erupted after the interview process was complete. During the finalization of the merit list, the JKSSB, acting on representations from some candidates with four-year degrees, unilaterally changed the criteria. Based on a clarification about the “non-equivalence” of the degrees due to duration, the Board decided to award the full 25 points only for the four-year professional degree, slashing the weightage for the three-year academic degree to 20 points. This last-minute alteration reshuffled the merit list, pushing candidates with the three-year degree out of the select zone.
Aggrieved, these candidates, led by Sudesh Kumar, moved the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. In a detailed judgment on March 6, 2019, a Division Bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Sindhu Sharma delivered a split yet compassionate ruling. The Court firmly quashed the selection process, branding the mid-stream change as “clearly impermissible” and “unsustainable in law.” It powerfully reiterated the settled legal axiom, supported by precedents like K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, that the rules of selection cannot be changed after the process has commenced.
However, facing a complex human dilemma, the High Court also refused to unsettle the lives of those appointed over a decade prior. Noting that the selected candidates had served provisionally for over 11 years pending litigation, the Bench held it would be “highly inequitable” to oust them, as it would leave them jobless and barred from future government employment by age. Instead, it crafted a balanced relief: it directed that the wronged petitioners (Sudesh Kumar & others) be appointed to vacant or newly created posts with notional seniority (but without back wages), while protecting the incumbents. Another appellant, Naveen Gupta, who had challenged the criteria itself after participation, was denied relief under the “doctrine of taking a chance.”
Unsatisfied, the JKSSB appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that distinguishing between course durations was a valid academic exercise and not a change to core eligibility. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B. Varale, in its November 2025 ruling, found no merit in this contention. The bench unanimously upheld the High Court’s 2019 decision, anchoring its reasoning in the landmark K. Manjusree case and the authoritative 2025 Constitution Bench ruling in Tej Prakash Pathak.
The apex court emphasized that while recruiting agencies have the freedom to design procedures, these must remain transparent, non-discriminatory, and fixed from the outset. Crucially, it noted that the JKSSB’s change was enacted only after candidates had fully completed their participation—a move deemed fundamentally unfair. The Court also questioned the change’s rationale, observing that for a post with a minimum requirement of 10+2, where selection heavily emphasized physical tests and viva voce, a significant re-weighting of academic scores at the final stage, triggered by candidate representations, lacked a solid foundation.
This Supreme Court verdict serves as a stern, final warning to all recruiting bodies across India: the evaluation criteria for a selection process must be set in stone before it begins and adhered to consistently until its conclusion. For Sudesh Kumar and others, the ruling culminates a grueling twenty-year quest for justice, entitling them to appointment as Foresters as per the High Court’s directions, which now carry the Supreme Court’s ultimate seal of approval. Significantly, the Supreme Court has also made it explicit that although no salary or allowances shall be admissible for the past period, the entire intervening period will count for pensionary and other consequential service benefits, thereby placing the final protective seal on the rights of the aggrieved candidates.
