ANIL KISHORE PANDIT versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1196, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1196 : 2024 INSC 188
Anil Kishore Pandit 
v. 
The State of Bihar and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 1566 of 2024)
02 February 2024
[Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to permissibility of an employer to change the 
qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream, during 
the course of the ongoing selection process.
Headnotes
Service law – Appointment to the post – Change in the 
qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream, 
during the course of the ongoing selection process – 
Permissibility:
Held: Employer cannot change the qualifications prescribed in 
the advertisement midstream, during the course of the ongoing 
selection process – Any such action would be arbitrary as it 
would tantamount to denial of an opportunity to those candidates 
who are eligible in terms of the advertisement but would stand 
disqualified on the basis of a change in the eligibility criteria 
after the same is announced by the employer – Having applied 
for appointment in accordance with the terms prescribed in the 
advertisement, a candidate acquires a vested right to be considered 
in accordance with the said advertisement – This consideration 
may not necessarily fructify into an appointment but certainly 
entitles the candidate to be considered for selection in accordance 
with the rules as they existed on the date of the advertisement 
– Any subsequent amendment to the advertisement during the 
course of the
selection process unless retrospective, cannot be 
a ground to disqualify a candidate from consideration – Division 
Bench erred in setting aside the order of the Single Judge of the 
High Court and cancelling appellant’s appointment to the post of 
Amin on the ground of his being overage on basis of the change 
in criteria/qualification in the selection process during midstream 
– Impugned judgement quashed and set aside – Earlier order
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
1197
Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others
passed by respondents appointing the appellant to the post by 
reckoning the age of the candidate in EBC category as 40 years, 
as on 01.01.2011 upheld. [Paras 8, 12, 13]
Case Law Cited
N.T. Devin Katti and Others v. Karnataka Public Service 
Commission and Others, (1990) 3 SCC 157; Mohd. 
Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and Others, 
[2009] 2 SCR 907 : (2009) 4 SCC 555; Zonal Manager, 
Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi and Others v. Aarya 
K. Babu and Another, [2019] 11 SCR 627 : (2019) 8 
SCC 587 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Change the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement 
midstream; Selection process; Appointment; Arbitrariness; Change 
in the eligibility criteria/qualification; Right of candidate.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1566 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patna in LPA No.1892 of 2015
Appearances for Parties
Subhro Sanyal, Sagar Roy, Sandeep Lamba, Amber Shehbaz Ansari, 
Dr. Nilakshi Choudhury, Kaushal Kishore, Mr./Ms. Avni Singh, Sanjay 
Kumar, Ms. Aakanksa Tiwari, Advs. for the Appellant.
Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan, Neeraj Shekhar, 
Kartik Kumar, Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 24th January, 2017, 
passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at 
Patna whereunder, an intra-Court Appeal1 filed by the respondent 
1	
LPA No. 1892 of 2015
1198
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
no.8 herein against an order dated 07th March, 2013, passed by 
the learned Single Judge in a writ petition2 filed by the appellant 
herein was allowed and as a result thereof, the order passed by 
the respondent no.1-State Government in compliance of the order 
passed by the learned Single Judge to appoint the appellant, if his 
date of birth was found to be within the permissible range as on 01st 
January, 2011, was set aside. 
3.	
A reference to the brief facts of the case is considered necessary. 
Vide memo dated 13th October, 2011, the District Employment 
Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah published an advertisement 
inviting applications from suitable candidates for appointment to 
the post of Amins on contractual basis. The cut off date of the age 
as per the District level vacancy was fixed as 40 years as on 01st 
January, 2011, for the Economic Backward Class3 category, both 
males and females. The appellant applied for selection to the said 
post pursuant to the advertisement dated 13th October, 2011. It is 
not in dispute that as on 01st January, 2011, the appellant’s age 
was 39 years 11 months and 27 days. In other words, the appellant 
qualified the age criteria in terms of the subject advertisement. The 
records reveal that in pursuance to a letter4 subsequently issued by 
the Principal Secretary Revenue and L.R. Department, Government 
of Bihar, another notice was displayed on the Notice Board of the
Collectorate, West Champaran on 15th November, 2011, stating that 
interested parties could apply till 30th November, 2011. 
4.	
The appellant appeared for the written examination on 22nd January, 
2012. Thereafter, a merit list was prepared for counselling in which his 
name was placed at Serial No.2. The District establishment prepared 
a selection list on 04th December, 2012, where his name was placed 
at Serial No.9, whereas that of the respondent No.8 was at Serial 
No.11. The remarks column noted that the appellant’s candidature 
was cancelled on the ground of his being overage. 
5.	
Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellant submitted a representation 
before the District Magistrate for rectification of the results, but to no 
avail. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court on 
2	
CWJC No. 15685 of 2012
3	
For short the ‘EBC’
4	
No. 446(4)/Revenue (dated 04th November, 2011)
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
1199
Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others
28th August, 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 07th March, 
2013, with a direction issued to the Collector, West Champaran to 
examine his grievance and pass necessary orders of appointment, in 
the event the date of birth of the appellant was found to be correct, 
i.e. 05th January, 1971, in terms of his Matriculation Certificate. On 
27th June, 2015, the appellant was appointed to the post of Amin by 
the District Magistrate West Champaran, Bettiah. 
6.	
Aggrieved by the said appointment, the respondent no.8 filed an 
intra-Court appeal before the Division Bench stating inter alia that 
he was not made a party by the appellant in the writ petition and 
assailing his appointment on the ground that the appellant was 
overaged in terms of the press communication dated 01st November, 
2011. Agreeing with the stand of the respondent No.8, the Division 
Bench has passed the impugned judgement. The Division Bench 
was of the opinion that the entire selection process had been carried 
out on the basis of treating the cut off date as 01st November, 2011. 
It was observed that though the advertisement at the District level 
did officially fix the cut off date as 01st January, 2011, it was not 
considered sacrosanct since uniformity was required to be maintained 
across the State with regard to the cut off date fixed.
7.	
Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned order on 
the ground
that the Division Bench erred in ignoring the date of the 
public advertisement that mentioned the cut off date as 01st January, 
2011, for reckoning the age of a candidate, which in the case of the 
appellant herein who belongs to the extremely backward category, 
was 40 years. He states that the subsequent communication issued 
by the respondents changing the cut off date from 01st January, 2011 
to 01st November, 2011, was not placed in public domain through any 
advertisement, as had been done earlier. Instead, it was displayed 
only on the Notice Board in the office of the Collectorate, which 
was not the correct procedure to be adopted and could not have 
been treated as overwriting the initial advertisement issued on 01st 
January, 2011. 
8.	
It is settled law that it is not open for an employer to change the 
qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream, during 
the course of the ongoing selection process. Any such action would 
be hit by the vice of arbitrariness as it would tantamount to denial 
of an opportunity to those candidates who are eligible in terms of
1200
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the advertisement but would stand disqualified on the basis of a 
change in the eligibility criteria after the same is announced by the 
employer. Having applied for appointment in accordance with the 
terms prescribed in the advertisement, a candidate acquires a vested 
right to be considered in accordance with the said advertisement. 
This consideration may not necessarily fructify into an appointment 
but certainly entitles the candidate to be considered for selection 
in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of the 
advertisement. To put it differently, the right of a candidate for being 
considered in terms of the advertisement stands crystalized on 
the date of the publication of the advertisement. Any subsequent 
amendment to the advertisement during the course of the selection 
process unless retrospective, cannot be a ground to disqualify a 
candidate from the zone of consideration.
9.	
In the above context, this Court in N.T. Devin Katti and Others v. 
Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others5 has held as 
under :
“11. ….. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to 
make it clear that a candidate on making application for 
a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire 
any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is 
otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules 
and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does 
acquire a vested right of being considered
for selection 
is accordance with the rules as they existed on the date 
of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited 
right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of 
selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in 
nature”.
10.	 A similar view has been expressed in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh 
Muslim University and Others6, where this Court did not approve 
the change of the criteria/qualification in the selection process by 
the Selection Committee constituted for filling up the post Lecturer 
in Chemistry in the respondent-University and observed as follows :
5	
(1990) 3 SCC 157
6	
[2009] 2 SCR 907 : (2009) 4 SCC 555

[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
1201
Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others
“25. We are not disputing the fact that in the matter of 
selection of candidates, opinion of the Selection Committee 
should be final, but at the same time, the Selection 
Committee cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the 
criteria/qualification in the selection process during its 
midstream. Merajuddin Ahmad did not possess a degree 
in Pure Chemistry and therefore, it was rightly held by 
the High Court that he did not possess the minimum 
qualification required for filling up the post of Lecturer in 
Chemistry, for Pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry 
are two different subjects.

xxx

xxx
xxx
27. The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, 
which is midway could not have changed the essential 
qualification laid down in the advertisement and at that 
stage held that a Master’s degree-holder in Industrial 
Chemistry would be better suited for manning the said 
post without there being any specific advertisement in that 
regard. The very fact that the University is now manning 
the said post by having a person from the discipline of 
Pure Chemistry also leads to the conclusion that the said 
post at that stage when it was advertised was meant to be 
filled up by a person belonging to Pure Chemistry stream.
11.	 Quoting the aforesaid decision in Zonal Manager, Bank of India, 
Zonal Office, Kochi and Others v. Aarya K. Babu and Another7, 
this Court made the following pertinent observations :
“14. If the above decision in Mohd. Sohrab Khan case 
[Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University], is 
kept in perspective it is clear that while examining the 
correctness of the action of the employer what would be 
sacrosanct will be the qualification criteria published in the 
notification, since if any change made to the qualification 
criteria midstream is accepted by the Court so as to benefit 
only the petitioners before it, without making it open to 
7	
[2019] 11 SCR 627 : (2019) 8 SCC 587
1202
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
all the qualified persons, it would amount to causing 
injustice to the others who possess such qualification but 
had not applied being honest to themselves as knowingly 
they did not possess the qualification sought for in the 
notification though they otherwise held another degree. 
Therefore, if there is any change in qualification/criteria 
after the notification is issued but before the completion 
of the selection process and the employer/recruiting 
agency seeks to adopt the change it will be incumbent 
on the employer to issue a corrigendum incorporating the 
changes to the notification and invite applications from 
those qualified as per the changed criteria and consider 
the same along with the applications received in response 
to the initial notification. The same principle will hold good 
when a consideration is made by the Court.”
12.	 Coming back to the case at hand, we are inclined to agree with the 
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. In the first 
instance, the respondents ought not to have issued a subsequent 
communication after having issued a public advertisement fixing the 
cut off date for reckoning the age of candidates, as on 01st January, 
2011. The initial decision taken by the respondents was sought to 
be overturned later on, merely on the basis of an internal discussion 
within the department and it was decided that a fresh notice be 
issued changing the date that was
initially fixed as 01st January, 
2011 to 1st November, 2011. This was done without following the due 
process as prescribed, of issuing a pubic advertisement, etc. Nor 
was the earlier advertisement recalled. In the meantime, going by the 
earlier advertisement issued by the respondent, the appellant had 
already applied. As per the said advertisement, his age was within 
the permissible range. Not only that, he was high up in the selection 
list and was even appointed to the post of Amin on 27th June, 2015.
13.	 Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 
the impugned judgement is quashed and set aside. It is deemed 
appropriate to set the clock back and uphold the earlier order passed 
by the respondents appointing the appellant to the post of Amin 
by reckoning the age of the candidates in the EBC category as 40 
years, as on 01st January, 2011.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
1203
Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others
14.	 The appointment of the appellant to the post of Amin is restored 
w.e.f 27th June, 2015, the date of his initial appointment, without any 
break in service. The appellant would be entitled to all the notional 
benefits except for the actual wages, having not discharged his 
duties on the said post in all these years. A letter reappointing the 
appellant to the subject post shall be issued by the respondents on 
the above terms within two weeks from today. The appointment of 
the respondent No.8 cannot be sustained and stands revoked in the 
light of the aforesaid orders. 
15.	 The present appeal is allowed on the above terms.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Result of the case: 
Appeal allowed.