The Patna High Court, sitting through Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, has ruled that a statutory amendment cannot be imposed retrospectively to change the substantive conditions of a recruitment process that had already reached a substantial stage of completion under the unamended provisions. The judgment arose from a petition challenging the cancellation of district allotments that had been awarded to candidates who had qualified the competency test, exercised their merit‑cum‑preference choices and undergone counselling under the recruitment scheme for local body teachers.
The court observed that once the candidates had cleared the written examination, secured their district postings on the basis of merit and stated preferences, and completed the counselling procedure, they had acquired a vested right to the allotment granted under the rules prevailing at that time. It emphasized that the recruitment process, for the purposes of the challenge, had substantially concluded before the amendment was introduced, and therefore the later change could not be allowed to disturb the settled positions.
In its reasoning, the Bench referred to the well‑settled principle that retrospective legislation which alters or deprives a person of an accrued right is impermissible unless the statute expressly provides for such effect or the legislature demonstrates a clear intention to apply the law backwards. The Court noted that the amendment in question contained no express retrospective clause and that the legislative history did not indicate an intent to affect ongoing recruitment proceedings. Consequently, the amendment could only operate prospectively.
The judgment further highlighted the doctrine of legitimate expectation, holding that the candidates, having fulfilled all procedural requirements and relied upon the existing rules, were entitled to expect that their allotments would not be disturbed by a subsequent change. The Court found that the administrative action of cancelling the allotments after the amendment amounted to a breach of that expectation and was therefore unsustainable in law.
On the facts, the petitioners had contended that the cancellation order issued by the recruiting authority was based solely on the amended rules and lacked any factual or procedural justification. The Court accepted this contention, stating that the authority had not shown any new ground, such as fraud or misrepresentation, that would warrant the withdrawal of the already‑granted allotments. It held that the cancellation was arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and contrary to the principle of non‑retroapplication of substantive law.
Accordingly, the Bench quashed the cancellation order and directed the recruiting authority to reinstate the district allotments of the petitioners in accordance with the original merit‑cum‑preference list prepared under the unamended rules. The Court also clarified that future recruitment processes would be governed by the amended provisions, but those already completed under the earlier regime would remain undisturbed.
The decision reinforces the safeguard against arbitrary alteration of recruitment conditions after candidates have invested time, effort and reliance on the prevailing rules. It serves as a precedent for similar cases where statutory changes are sought to be applied to ongoing or concluded selection processes, affirming that such alterations must be prospective unless expressly mandated otherwise.