The Commissioner and Secretary and 4 Ors. Vs Smti. Neizelhounuo Thur and Anr.

¶1

Page No.# 1/21

¶2

GAHC020005342025

¶3

2025:GAU-NL:605-DB

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

¶5

Case No. : WA/22/2025

¶6

THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY AND 4 ORS GOVT. OF NAGALAND, GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT, KOHIMA NAGALAND

¶7

2: SARAH R. RITSE

¶8

MEMBER SELECTION BOARD CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT C/O GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶9

3: MOTUO SOTE MEMBER SELECTION BOARD CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT C/O GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶10

4: SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO MEMBER SELECTION BOARD CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT S/O GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶11

5: GEORGE MEMBER SELECTION BOARD CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT S/O GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIM

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

SMTI. NEIZELHOUNUO THUR AND ANR

¶14

LDA CUM COMPUTER ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, NAGALAND STATE TRANSPORT

¶15

Page No.# 2/21

¶16

DEPARTRMENT, KOHIMA NAGALAND

¶17

2:SMTI. LUCY KONYAK SECRETARIAT ASSISTANT GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA-79700

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : GOVT ADV NL,

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : A. ZHO (R-1), V KOZA,TAKA KICHU

¶20

Linked Case : WA/9/2025

¶21

SMTI. LUCY KONYAK SECRETARIAT ASSISTANT GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA-797001

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

SMTI NEIZELHOUNUO THUR AND 5 ORS LDA CUM COMPUTER ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER NAGALAND STATE TRANSPORT KOHIMA NAGALAND

¶24

2:THE COMMISSSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF NAGALAND GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶25

3:SARAH R. RITSE MEMBER SELECTION BOARD CONSTITUTED BY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT C/O GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶26

4:MOTUO SOTE MEMBER SELECTION BOARD CONSTITUTED BY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT C/O GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶27

Page No.# 3/21

¶28

5:SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO MEMBER SELECTION BOARD CONSTITUTED BY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT C/O GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶29

6:GEORGE MEMBER SELECTION BOARD CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT C/O GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶30

¶31

– B E F O R E –

¶32

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶33

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Taka Masa, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Arenlong and Mr. K. Angami, Advocates. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Zho, Advocate. Date on which judgment is reserved : 04.12.2025. Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.12.2025 . Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : Not applicable. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes.

¶34

Page No.# 4/21

¶35

J UDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

¶36

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶37

Both these appeals have been preferred challenging the judgment dated 16.05.2025, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 182/2016.

¶38

2. We have heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arenlong and Mr. K. Angami, learned Advocates for the appellants and Mr. A. Zho, learned Advocate for the respondents.

¶39

3. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.11.2015, issued by the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland, Kohima, seeking applications along with CV from serving candidates belonging to 6(six) tribes of Nagaland, namely, Chang, Khiamnuingan, Konyak, Phom, Sangtam and Yimchunger for filling up a post of Secretariat Assistant in the Scale of Pay of Rs. 9,300-34,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- per month (Pay Band-2) under the establishment of Governor Secretariat, Nagaland, Kohima , both the appellant in WA 9/2025 and the respondent No. 1 had applied.

¶40

4. The appellant in WA 9/2025, namely, Lucy Konyak, was declared successful vide Notification dated 03.08.2016 and was appointed as Secretariat Assistant under the establishment of Governor Secretariat, Nagaland, Kohima. The appointment was purely on probation for a period of 1(one) year from the date of assuming charge.

¶41

Page No.# 5/21

¶42

Be it noted that prior to this appointment , the appellant in WA No. 9/2025 had been serving as a Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies in the office of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mon District.

¶43

5. The appointment of Lucy Konyak was challenged by the respondent No. 1 by filing a writ petition on the ground that the “rules of the game” for selection and recruitment were illegally and arbitrarily changed after the game had started.

¶44

6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, held that the interview and work experience assessment of the candidates was conducted by the Examination Board in violation of the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement dated 21.11.2015 and the Call Letter dated 08.02.2016. The changes made by the Examination Board on 12.07.2016, though claimed to have been pasted on the Notice Board, cannot be deemed to have been notified to all the candidates, leaving the candidates unaware of the changes made for the purpose of interview.

¶45

The writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 was allowed; the appointment of the appellant was quashed and it was directed as follows:

¶46

“49. In the light of the above discussion and for the observations made, the findings reached at and for the reasons assigned above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶47

[i] The official respondents shall proceed to award the marks to the candidates for the two segments of the selection process – [a] the oral interview; and [b] the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification; from the marks

¶48

Page No.# 6/21

¶49

already awarded to them on the basis of the weightages for the said two segments at 25% and 15% respectively.

¶50

[ii] As such marks are to be awarded for the two segments – [a] the oral interview; and [b] the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification; for weightages of 30% and 10% respectively, the official respondents shall accordingly scale up and scale down the marks awarded earlier to the candidates, which were given on the basis of weightages at 25% and 15% respectively.

¶51

[iii] In the Minutes of the Meeting of the Selection Board, held on 13.07.2016, it was recorded that only three candidates had secured 50% marks in the written examination. Apart from the petitioner, the other candidate did not challenge the appointment of the respondent no.6. If such is the position, then the exercise is to be made limited to the petitioner and the respondent no.6 only. The official respondents shall only allot marks to the petitioner and the respondent no.6, who had qualified in the written examination to appear in the oral interview by securing 50% marks out of the 200 marks in the written examination. Meaning thereby, the exercise is not to be made for all the remaining candidates.

¶52

[iv] After proportionately awarding the marks for the two segments – [a] the oral interview; and [b] the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification; the official respondents shall prepare the merit list on the basis of the aggregate marks secured by the petitioner and the respondent no.6 in all the three segments of the selection process.

¶53

[v] After preparing the merit list on the basis of the aggregate marks secured by the petitioner and the respondent no.6, the official respondents shall proceed to appoint the candidate who has secured the higher marks to the post of Secretariat Assistant in the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland.

¶54

[vi] The entire exercise is to be completed within a period of one month from the date of this order.”

¶55

Hence the appeal on behalf of the appellant/Lucy Konyak and the State as well.

¶56

7. In these appeals, by an order dated 04.06.2025, a Bench of this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned judgment dated 16.05.2025 passed in WP(C) 182/2016 till final disposal of the

¶57

Page No.# 7/21

¶58

present appeals. Consequently, the appellant in WA No. 9/2025, i.e. Lucy Konyak, has remained on the post of Secretariat Assistant under the establishment of Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland, since 2016 till date.

¶59

8. Some facts, in short, would be necessary to be considered for proper appreciation of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties.

¶60

9. As noted above, an advertisement was issued on 21.11.2015 from desirous serving candidates from 6(six) tribes for the post of Secretariat Assistant in the Governor’s Secretariat in the State of Nagaland. The advertisement stipulated that the written examination would consist of MCQ of total of 100 marks and the weightage allocated was in the ratio of 50 marks for written examination; 30 marks for interview and 20 marks for the overall assessment regarding the work experience of the candidates.

¶61

10. Pursuant to such advertisement, the appellant/Lucy Konyak and the respondent No. 1 along with others had applied. Both Lucy Konyak and the respondent No. 1 received Call Letters dated 08.02.2016 intimating them and others that in partial modification to the advertisement, now the written examination will be of total 200 marks (150 marks for Multiple Choice Questions and 50 marks for Subjective Type Questions) and that weightage would be in the ratio of 60% for written examination; 30% for interview and 10% for computer educational and professional qualification.

¶62

Page No.# 8/21

¶63

11. No questions were raised with respect to the afore-noted modification in the manner in which the assessment of the candidates was to be made. Even otherwise, all the short-listed candidates were duly informed about the modification vide such Call Letters sent individually to each of the candidates.

¶64

12. The written examination was held on 13.07.2016 in the Conference Hall of the Governor’s Secretariat at Raj Bhawan, Kohima.

¶65

However, a day prior to the written examination, the Selection Board comprising 4(four) senior officers, namely, Commissioner & Secretary to the Governor; Additional Secretary to the Governor; and two Deputy Secretaries to the Governor, held a meeting on 12.07.2016.

¶66

The minutes of the meeting held on 12.07.2016 is being extracted hereunder for ready reference:

¶67

“Minutes of the Selection Board Meeting held on 12th July, 2016

¶68

Date of Meeting: 12^th July, 2016

¶69

Venue: Office Chamber of Commissioner & Secretary to Governor

¶70

Time: 1100 hours

¶71

A selection Board meeting was held on 12^th July, 2016 at the Office Chamber of the Commissioner & Secretary to Governor to short list the candidates for the Oral Interview based on the marks obtained in the Written Examination with the following members:

¶72

(1) Shri Sanjay Kumar, IASD, Comr. & Secy. to Governor

¶73

(2) Shri Motuo M. Sote, Addl. Secy. to Governor

¶74

(3) Shri Saroj Kuamr Sahoo, Dy. Secy. to Governor

¶75

(4) Shri George Abraham, Dy. Secy. to Governor

¶76

Page No.# 9/21

¶77

Decisions taken during the meeting of the Selection Board

¶78

(i) On scrutiny of the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification of the candidates shortlisted for the Written Test, the Board after taking in account the works experience and special qualification possed by the candidates has observed that there is a need to review the marks kept for Oral Interview and after detailed discussion it was decided that marks in the Oral Interview may be reduced from 30% to 25% and the marks for the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification may be increased from 10% to 15%. The total marks will be 40% as was given in the Call Letter of the candidates.

¶79

(ii) The final selection of the candidates out of those called for interview will be as under:

¶80

a. Total marks obtained in the written examination of 200 marks shall carry weightage of 60%

¶81

b. Oral Interview shall carry overall weightage of 25%

¶82

c. The overall assessment such as work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification shall carry a weightage of 15%

¶83

(iii) The Selection Board members thereafter finalized the marks for the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification for all candidates. The marks given to each candidates work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification is enclosed.

¶84

A copy of this decision of the Selection Board may be put in the notice board of Governor’s Secretariat for information of the interested candidates.”

¶85

13. The sum and substance of the deliberation was that a decision was taken to the effect that the marks for interview would be reduced from 30% to 25%; whereas marks for the work experience, knowledge and proficiency in computer education and professional qualification would be increased from 10% to 15%.

¶86

What is noticeable is that the minutes of such deliberation was directed to be pasted on the Notice Board of the Governor’s

¶87

Page No.# 10/21

¶88

Secretariat for information of the interested candidates. This Notice Board was in the same place where the written examination was to be, and had been, held a day later, i.e. 13.07.2016.

¶89

The interview was held on 14.07.2016. On a day prior to holding of the interview, but on the same day on which the written examination was held, i.e. on 13.07.2016, the Selection Board took another decision to reduce the minimum eligibility marks in the written test from 50% to 45%, as with the cut-off of 50% marks, only three candidates would have been available for final selection.

¶90

14. It is again relevant here to state that both , the appellant in WA 9/2025 and the respondent No. 1 had secured more than 50% marks.

¶91

Ultimately, by a slight margin of 1.4%, the appellant / Lucy Konyak could steal a march over respondent No. 1.

¶92

The respondent No. 1 had claimed that if the rules of the game had not been changed, she would have secured more marks in the final tally than the appellant / Lucy Konyak.

¶93

15. The question which confronts us, therefore, is whether such changes brought about in the process of selection, firstly on 08.02.2016; then on 12.07.2016 and finally on 13.07.2016 amounted to change of the rules of the game midway, thus vitiating the entire process of selection?

¶94

This issue has very frequently been cropping up before the adjudicators.

¶95

Page No.# 11/21

¶96

The most accepted , rather, the thumb rule was, which still prevails, is that once the recruitment process commences, the State or its instrumentalities cannot change the rules of the games in so far as the prescription of eligibility criteria are concerned.

¶97

However, the question whether this rigor/ prescription would apply proprio vigore to the procedure or benchmark set up at various stages of selection process, had been troubling the Courts for quite some time.

¶98

16. In K. Manjusree -Vs- State of A.P & Anr. :: (2008) 3 SCC 512 , the recruitment exercise was undertaken for selection and appointment to the posts of Assistant Sessions Judge (Grade-II). Though the extant Rules clearly provided the eligibility qualification, but no prescription was made with respect to the procedure of selection, which was in the domain of the High Court. In this case, written examinations were held and the results were declared, wherein 83 candidates were found to be successful. Interviews were held later and the marks obtained by those 83 candidates were aggregated and a consolidated select list was prepared in the order of merit on the basis of the aggregated marks. The merit list contained the marks secured by each candidate in the written examination out of the total 100 marks, and the marks secured in the interview for a total of 25 marks and thus the total marks out of 125 marks secured in the written examination and the interview. Based on that list, the Administrative Committee of the High Court approved the selection of 10 candidates as per their merit and

¶99

Page No.# 12/21

¶100

reservation. The Full Court, disagreeing with the decision of the Administrative Committee, rejected the select list so prepared. A new committee was constituted for preparing a fresh select list. This new committee had recommended that in place of 100 marks for written examination and 25 marks for interview, the candidates should be evaluated on the basis of 75 marks for written examination and 25 marks for interview, thereby making the marking on a scale of 100 marks in all.

¶101

It was also recommended that the minimum pass percentage be fixed for written examination to determine the eligibility of the candidates for appearing in the interview and the same rigor be adopted for interview, namely, those who would fail to secure the minimum marks to be fixed in the interview would be considered to have failed.

¶102

17. Based on such recommendation, a revised merit list of 31 successful candidates was prepared, wherein a few candidates, who were earlier selected, were ousted and a few others, who earlier were not selected, gained entry. However, from the aforenoted list of 31 candidates, only 9 were recommended for appointment.

¶103

Writ petitions were filed by two of the candidates, who had been selected in the first list but were excluded in the second list, challenging the select list on the ground that prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the interview was arbitrary and illegal.

¶104

Page No.# 13/21

¶105

The challenge could not be sustained and the writ petitions were dismissed.

¶106

18. Against the afore-noted dismissal, two SLPs were filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, though found the decision of the High Court to be correct in scaling down the marks for written examination from 100 to 75, but did not approve of the minimum qualifying marks fixed for the interview. The reasoning given by the Supreme Court was that the entire process of selection, from the stage of holding the examination to the interview and finalizing the list of candidates to be selected, was done under the presumption that there was no minimum marks for the interview. Changing that proposition, i.e. providing for minimum qualifying marks for interview, after everything was done, tantamounted to changing the rules of the game after the game had started, which was not permissible.

¶107

Thus, what was held was that the criterion for selection is not to be changed after completion of the selection process. However, in absence of any Rules to the contrary, the recruiting body may fix minimum marks either for written examination or for interview for the purpose of selection. But if such minimum marks are fixed, it must be done before the commencement of the selection process.

¶108

19. For a long time, this view prevailed and was followed by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar -Vs- High Court of Delhi & Anr. :: (2010) 3 SCC 104 .

¶109

Page No.# 14/21

¶110

20. In K.H. Siraj -Vs- High Court of Kerala & Ors. :: (2006) 6 SCC 395 , it was, however, held that if the Rules governing the recruitment process provides latitude to the competent authority to devise its procedure for selection, it may do so subject to the Rules against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶111

21. Similar issue cropped up in Hemani Malhotra -Vs- High Court of Delhi :: (2008) 7 SCC 11 ,

¶112

This required a definitive determination of the issues as to what would be the stage when the recruitment process can be said to have commenced, or concluded; whether the doctrine of “no change of the rules of the game midway” was required to be followed in a straight jacket manner allowing no latitude to the recruitment body with respect to any procedure adopted for finally concluding the selection process after the issuance of advertisement and whether the “no change of the rules of the game midway” doctrine ought to be applied with equal strictness with respect to the method or procedure of selection, but without making any change in the eligibility criteria.

¶113

22. A five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, on the aforenoted referral in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. -Vs- Rajasthan High Court & Ors. :: (2025) 2 SCC 1 has held as follows:-

¶114

“Conclusions

¶115

65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:

¶116

Page No.# 15/21

¶117

65.1 Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;

¶118

65.2 Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of nonarbitrariness;

¶119

65.3 The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the select list whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the select list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;

¶120

65.4 Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, nondiscriminatory /non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

¶121

65.5 Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;

¶122

(emphasis provided by us)

¶123

65.6 Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.”

¶124

23. The basis for the doctrine proscribing “change of rules midway” through the game, or after the game has started or finally played is based on the rules against arbitrariness under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Candidates participating in a recruitment process have the legitimate expectation that the

¶125

Page No.# 16/21

¶126

process of selection would be fair and non-arbitrary. To ensure this, the eligibility criterion and, perhaps, the rules/procedure which are to be followed in a recruitment exercise, must be announced in advance. But this legitimate expectation does not take away the power of public authority/recruiting body to lay down any policy or to set a benchmark at any stage of recruitment with the only limitation that such change must be effected before the actual part of the process commences and that such decision is rational and has nexus with the larger public interest. Thus, public interest serves as a limitation on the application of the doctrine of “legitimate expectation”.

¶127

24. In Sivanandan C.T. & Ors. -Vs- High Court of Kerala & Ors. :: (2024) 3 SCC 799 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that for a public authority to frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation, it must effectively demonstrate by placing relevant material before the Court that the decision was in public interest.

¶128

Keeping these two dictums in Tej Prakash Pathak and Sivanandan C.T. (supra), if we analyze the facts of this case, it would appear that the interference made by the learned Single Judge is unwarranted.

¶129

Even at the risk of repetition, we are tempted to refer to the changes which were made at different stages.

¶130

The advertisement prescribed weightage in the ratio of 50:30:20 for written examination; interview and working experience, respectively. In the Call Letters dated 08.12.2016, it was modified to

¶131

Page No.# 17/21

¶132

60:30:10, respectively. This change was notified to all the aspirants/candidates and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has not taken exception to this modification.

¶133

Another change was effected on 12.07.2016 , changing the ratio to 60:25:15, respectively. This change was effected before the written examination was held, though only a day prior. With this change in the ratio of the weightage to be given, none of the candidates would have suffered any discrimination. This decision was by virtue of a deliberation of the Selection Board, the minutes of which were pasted on the Notice Board of the Governor’s Secretariat where the written examination was to be held.

¶134

The learned Single Judge, however, taking exception to the same, held that it was no notice to the candidates in the eyes of law as every candidate ought not to be expected to read the Notice Board regarding modification/change in the procedure.

¶135

25. The last of the changes was made on 13.07. 20 1 6, reducing the minimum eligibility marks in the written tests from 50% to 45%, as with 50% cut-off marks , only three candidates would have been available for final selection leaving the entire selection process totally lopsided and flawed.

¶136

Finding fault with the afore-noted changes, the learned Single Judge has observed as follows:-

¶137

“43. One fundamental flaw is noticeable in the decisions taken by the Selection Board in its Meetings, held on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 respectively. It is a universal norm in a selection process for a selection body to finalise the selection criteria before the

¶138

Page No.# 18/21

¶139

commencement of the selection process. From the decision taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016, it is noticed that the Selection Board scrutinised the testimonials, documents, certificates, etc. of the candidates for the segment, ‘work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification’. It was after taking into account the works experience and special qualification possessed by the candidates, the Selection Board had opined that there was a need to review the marks earmarked for oral interview. It was thereafter, decided that the marks earmarked for the oral interview were to be reduced from 30% to 25% and the marks earmarked for the segment, ‘work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification’ were be increased from 10% to 15%. The Selection Board further observed that with such reduction and enhancement of marks, there would be no change in the total weightage of 40% earmarked in total for the said two segments of the selection process, as even in the call letter issued to the candidates on 08.02.2016, it was mentioned as 40%. The Selection Board in its Meeting, held on 13.07.2016, scrutinized the results of the written examination of the candidates. On scrutiny of the results of the written examination of all the candidates, the Selection Board found that only three candidates could score more than 50% in the written examination and as a result, only these three candidates had become eligible to appear in the oral interview. It was after such scrutiny, the Selection Board decided to relax the minimum eligibility marks for the written examination from 50% to 45% to qualify for the oral interview. These decisions taken on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 go to indicate that the Selection Board had arbitrarily changed the selection criteria depending on the performance of the candidates in the written examination and on the basis of work experience and special qualification possessed by the candidates and not on the basis of the selection criteria it had earlier laid down in the call letter dated 08.02.2016. These decisions had clearly amounted to a situation of putting the cart before the horse. These decisions are clearly anathema to the constitutional principles embedded in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. These decisions would fail on the touchtone of fairness, consistency, transparency, and predictability and they are clearly offensive to the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The reasoning given by the Selection Board that by changes made through these decisions would not bring about any change in the total weightage of 40% earmarked for the two segments cannot be a saving grace.

¶140

Page No.# 19/21

¶141

44. When the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed above, are examined by taking into purview such well settled proposition, it clearly emerges that the changes made in the weightages earmarked by the Selection Board for the two segments – oral interview [30%]; & work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification [10%] – before 08.02.2016 could not have been changed to 25% and 15% respectively on 12.07.2016. Similarly, the minimum eligibility marks of 50% for the written examination fixed by the Selection Board before 08.02.2016 to qualify for the oral interview, could not have been reduced to 45% on 13.07.2016, that too, when the written examination was over and marks for all the candidates were assessed and known. The decisions taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 have failed to pass the test of fairness, consistency, transparency and predictability and consequently, these decisions taken in the course of the decisionmaking process leading to the final selection are found unsustainable in law on the touchtone of the principles of equality embedded in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.

¶142

45. The elements of arbitrariness and discrimination had entered into the selection process from the stage subsequent to the decisions taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 to change the criteria for selection. The decisions taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 are held to be impermissible in law as they were part of the decision-making process leading to the impugned Order dated 03.08.2016. As the impugned dated 03.08.2016 was a result of such decision-making process, fraught with the illegalities of the above nature, the impugned Order dated 03.08.2016 is also liable to be set aside and quashed. It is accordingly, ordered. As the final results prepared and declared by the Selection Board to select the candidate for appointment to the post of Secretariat Assistant in the establishment of the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland are also found fraught with illegalities, the same are also interfered with.”

¶143

26. With utmost humility at our command, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge took a blinkered view of the entire situation. The first change brought about on 08.02.2016 was duly circulated and disseminated. The second change brought out on 12.07.2016 was effected before the written

¶144

Page No.# 20/21

¶145

examination and the third change on 13.07.2016 was effected only for the purpose of making the process more inclusive without impinging on the quality of the recruitment process, which did not affect adversely either the appellant or the respondent No.1 or, for that matter, anybody else.

¶146

Could this, then, be treated as change in the rules of the game after the game was played?

¶147

No eligibility criterion was changed; rather the change was only effected to facilitate the process of assessment which has not been proscribed in the extant Rules. The procedure adopted after the change cannot be said to be illogical or non-transparent or discriminatory/ arbitrary and having no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

¶148

27. We wonder, why the interference then?

¶149

28. We have examined the case from another perspective as

¶150

well.

¶151

Both the appellant in WA No.9/2025 and the respondent No.1 were in service before applying for the post. Since the respondent No.1 did not succeed, she continued to remain in the same employment. The appellant / Lucy Konyak, had to resign from her earlier employment to join the present assignment, where she has been continuing for the last 10(ten) years. The changes do not appear to have been effected for the purpose of accommodating anybody, much less the appellant / Lucy Konyak. Disturbing her appointment now would, in our view, be inappropriate.

¶152

Page No.# 21/21

¶153

29. In such circumstances, finding the interference with the recruitment process and the ultimate selection process to be wholly unnecessary, we are left with no option but to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶154

30. We order accordingly.

¶155

31. The judgment impugned in the present set of appeals is set aside.

¶156

Both the appeals stand allowed.

¶157

JUDGE

¶158

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶159

Comparing Assistant

The Commissioner and Secretary and 4 Ors. v. Smti. Neizelhounuo Thur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner and Secretary and 4 Ors. v. Smti. Neizelhounuo Thur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Makut Nayak Vs State of Nagaland

Shri Mukesh Chaudhary Vs State of Nagaland

Shri. Akum Chingmak Vs the State of Nagaland

Smti. Lucy Konyak Vs Smti Neizelhounuo Thur and 5 Ors.

Ramendra Deka and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The Union of India and 9 Ors. Vs Santosh Kumar