Also Read - ₹20,000 Monthly Maintenance Upheld for Wife and Child by Karnataka High Court

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.

Also Read - Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Probate Applications

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.