Recruitment to public posts is not merely an administrative formality; it is a process governed by constitutional principles of fairness, equality, and transparency under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any arbitrary interference by the executive in such processes has far-reaching consequences for thousands of aspirants who rely on the stability of statutory rules and government assurances.
A recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Partha Das & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4426–4466 of 2023 and connected matters, decided on 28 August 2025) examined whether the State of Tripura was justified in cancelling an ongoing recruitment process for the post of Enrolled Followers in the Tripura State Rifles (TSR), even though the process had been conducted strictly in accordance with the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 and the Rules of 1984.
This article critically analyses the judgment, exploring the interplay between statutory rules and executive instructions, the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, and the doctrine that rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun.
Background of the Case
The recruitment in question related to Enrolled Followers in the Tripura State Rifles, a paramilitary force created under the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983. The Act, supplemented by the TSR Recruitment Rules, 1984, lays down the procedure for appointments, eligibility conditions, and powers of appointing authorities.
- In 2016, the Tripura Police Headquarters initiated the recruitment for 506 vacancies of Enrolled Followers, divided into two categories:
Inside-State Quota: 372 vacancies
Outside-State Quota: 134 vacancies
- The recruitment rallies were held across Tripura and in other states between September–December 2016.
- Candidates underwent physical tests, written examinations, and interviews as prescribed under Rule 24(e) of the TSR Rules, which required candidates to pass such tests as specified by the Director General of Police (DGP).
- By mid-2017, the selection process was substantially complete—provisional merit lists were prepared, and character verification of selected candidates had begun.
However, before the issuance of appointment letters, a political change occurred in March 2018. The newly elected government issued two controversial orders:
- Abeyance Memorandum (14.03.2018): All ongoing recruitments across departments were kept in abeyance pending review.
- Cancellation Memorandum (20.08.2018): Following the introduction of a New Recruitment Policy (NRP) on 05.06.2018, all ongoing recruitments, except judicial services, were cancelled.
The cancellation was justified on grounds of bringing in greater transparency and abolishing interviews for Group-D posts.
Aggrieved candidates approached the Tripura High Court, which upheld the cancellation. Appeals were then filed before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
The Supreme Court framed three central issues:
- Whether the Abeyance and Cancellation Memorandums, issued in the wake of a new recruitment policy, could override the recruitment process already governed by statutory rules.
- Whether applying the New Recruitment Policy (NRP) to ongoing recruitments amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game had begun.
- Whether the candidates had acquired any indefeasible right or legitimate expectation to appointment.
Statutory Rules v. Executive Instructions
The Court first analysed whether executive instructions (like the NRP) can override statutory rules such as the TSR Act and Rules.
- Rule 24(e) of the TSR Rules specifically allowed the DGP to prescribe tests, including interviews. Accordingly, interviews were held for Enrolled Followers.
- The Cancellation Memorandum abolished interviews for Group-D posts under the NRP.
- The Court held that since the recruitment was carried out strictly as per statutory provisions, the State could not cancel it merely by issuing executive instructions.
Citing precedents such as Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (1967), A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka (1998), and Bank of Baroda v. G. Palani (2022), the Court reiterated:
Executive instructions can supplement statutory rules but cannot supplant them. Where a statute and rules already occupy the field, executive orders cannot override them.
Thus, the NRP lacked statutory force and could not invalidate a process conducted under valid legislation.
Change of Rules Midway: “Rules of the Game”
The Court emphasised the doctrine that recruitment rules cannot be altered midway:
- In K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025), it was held that benchmarks or procedures cannot be changed after the recruitment process has commenced.
- In the present case, interviews had already been conducted and candidates ranked accordingly. Abolishing interviews retrospectively was impermissible.
- The Court observed that the State’s attempt to “erase a portion of the game already played” was contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Thus, applying the NRP to ongoing recruitment was illegal on three counts:
- It attempted to override statutory rules.
- It changed the rules after the process had begun.
- Clause (2) of the NRP itself stated that it applied prospectively, not retrospectively.
Legitimate Expectation v. Indefeasible Right
Another significant question was whether candidates had any right to appointment.
- The State argued, relying on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991), that mere selection or placement in a merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.
- The appellants countered with Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala (2024), arguing that while there may be no absolute right, candidates had a legitimate expectation that the process would be concluded fairly and not arbitrarily abandoned.
The Supreme Court struck a balance:
- No indefeasible right: Candidates cannot demand appointment merely because they were selected.
- But legitimate expectation exists: Once the State initiates a recruitment under statutory rules, candidates expect a fair and consistent process. Cancelling midway without valid justification violates this principle.
State’s Plea of “Larger Public Interest”
Government defended its actions by arguing that the cancellation was in larger public interest, as the NRP introduced merit-based written tests and abolished subjective interviews.
However, the Court rejected this contention:
- The recruitment process in question had already reached the final stages with no allegations of irregularity.
- The State failed to demonstrate how cancelling the nearly completed recruitment furthered larger public interest.
- On the contrary, it inflicted hardship on candidates who had invested time and effort in the process.
The Court concluded that the burden lies on the State to prove public interest, which it failed to discharge.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
After analysing the facts and law, the Supreme Court held:
- The cancellation of recruitment was arbitrary and illegal. Executive instructions (NRP) could not override statutory rules (TSR Act and Rules).
- Application of NRP to ongoing processes was impermissible. Changing rules after commencement violated the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness.
- Candidates had a legitimate expectation of fair treatment, which the State could not defeat without valid reasons.
- The Abeyance Memorandum (14.03.2018) and Cancellation Memorandum (20.08.2018) were quashed.
- The Court directed the State to complete the recruitment process within three months, subject to verification of candidates.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed:
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.
Key Legal Principles Emanating from the Judgment
- Supremacy of Statutory Rules: Recruitment carried out under statutory provisions cannot be nullified by executive policies.
- Doctrine of Occupied Field: Once legislation covers a subject, executive instructions cannot operate contrary to it.
- Prospective Operation of Policies: New recruitment policies apply prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.
- Rules of the Game Doctrine: The procedure of recruitment cannot be altered after the process begins.
- Legitimate Expectation: While no absolute right to appointment accrues, candidates are entitled to expect fairness, consistency, and non-arbitrariness.
- Burden of Justifying Public Interest: If the State relies on public interest, it must substantiate the claim with concrete evidence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Partha Das v. State of Tripura underscores a vital constitutional principle: Governments cannot cancel recruitment processes midway in violation of statutory rules and principles of fairness.
While the State retains discretion in framing recruitment policies, such discretion must operate prospectively and within the boundaries of existing statutes. The ruling ensures that the aspirations of candidates are protected from abrupt policy reversals, thereby strengthening the integrity of public recruitment in India.
In essence, the judgment answers the titular question decisively: A government cannot arbitrarily cancel a recruitment process midway despite statutory compliance, unless supported by valid statutory amendments and demonstrable public interest.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams