High Court of Delhi (Sanjeev Narula, J., oral) — W.P.(C) 7882/2026, decided 09.07.2026: Candidates figuring in the UPSC Pratibha Setu CSE-2024 disclosure list challenged the Mera Yuva Bharat Recruitment Rules, 2026 (minimum qualification lowered from Post Graduate/Master's degree to Graduation; upper age raised from 30 to 32 years) and the recruitment notification dated 12.05.2026 for the post of Assistant Director/District Youth Officer in MY Bharat, contending that the 358 vacancies identified as on 01.09.2025 formed one continuing pool under the temporarily borrowed NYKS Rules and that April 2026 emails, a webinar and a CPGRAMS reply dated 21.04.2026 showed recruitment had commenced before the 2026 Rules. HELD: (i) identification of vacancies, availability of a source pool and commencement of recruitment are distinct; recruitment commences only when the employer invites applications under stated conditions; (ii) the Pratibha Setu portal is merely a source of candidates; (iii) the April 2026 communications were anticipatory and the CPGRAMS reply showed at best preparatory steps — recruitment commenced with the notification dated 12.05.2026, after the 2026 Rules came into force on 06.05.2026, hence no midstream change of rules; (iv) the 2025 stipulation that unfilled vacancies would be filled from later disclosure lists fixed only the source, created no vested right and did not freeze eligibility; (v) relying on State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar (noting overruling of Y.V. Rangaiah), vacancies need not be filled under the rules existing when they arose; (vi) the liberalising amendment enlarges the eligible field and is not arbitrary; prescription of qualifications lies within the employer's domain; absence of a saving clause and alleged procedural infirmities do not invalidate the Rules; legitimate expectation cannot freeze earlier rules. Writ petition dismissed; Petitioner No. 17 deleted from the array having received an offer of appointment.
