Legal Review and Analysis of Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors vs State of Bihar & Ors 2026 INSC 24
Case Synopsis
Case: Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors. vs State of Bihar & Ors. (2026 INSC 24)
Synopsis : The Supreme Court has authoritatively restated that the fundamental rules governing a public employment selection process, particularly the criteria for determining merit, are irrevocably fixed upon the issuance of the recruitment advertisement. Any subsequent amendment to these rules, which seeks to alter the basis of selection, cannot be applied retrospectively to an ongoing recruitment cycle where the crucial stages of the process have already been concluded.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Title: Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors. vs State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 24
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Date: January 6, 2026
2. Relevant Laws and Sections
The judgment primarily engages with the following legal provisions and principles:
Article 309 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the State to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.
Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India: Guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, forming the basis for the challenge against arbitrariness.
The Bihar Engineering Service Class – II Recruitment Rules, 2019: The statutory rules governing the recruitment process in question.
The Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022: The amending rules that introduced weightage for contractual experience retrospectively.
Legal Doctrines:
The "Rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun."
Principle against arbitrary state action.
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Facts of the Case
The Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, notified the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment Rules, 2019 ("2019 Rules") for appointing Assistant Engineers. The Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) issued advertisements in 2019 inviting applications. The 2019 Rules prescribed selection solely based on marks obtained in a written competitive examination. Accordingly, written examinations were held in March 2022, and provisional merit lists were published in June-July 2022, followed by document verification.
Subsequently, in November 2022, the State government issued the 2022 Amendment Rules, which inserted a new Rule 8(5). This rule introduced a revised selection formula: 75 marks for the written examination and up to 25 additional marks for prior contractual work experience. Crucially, this amendment was given retrospective effect from March 6, 2019 (the date of the original 2019 Rules).
The appellants, candidates who had already secured places in the provisional merit list based on the original written exam criteria, challenged this retrospective application before the Patna High Court. The High Court dismissed their petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
The core legal issue was whether the 2022 Amendment Rules, specifically Rule 8(5), could be applied retrospectively to an ongoing recruitment process that had commenced under the 2019 Rules, after the written examination had been conducted and the provisional merit list had been published.
Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court's reasoning was anchored in established constitutional and administrative law principles:
Sanctity of the Recruitment Process: The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that the criteria for selection cannot be altered after the recruitment process has commenced. Relying on its landmark judgments in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) and the Constitution Bench ruling in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025), the Court held that changing the "rules of the game" after the game has been played is impermissible and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Stage of the Process: The Court emphasized that in this case, the recruitment "game" was not just begun but was at its "fag end." The written test was over, results were declared, and document verification was completed. Introducing a new marking criterion (weightage for experience) at this stage fundamentally altered the basis for placement in the merit list.
Nature of the Provisional Merit List: The Court rejected the State's argument that the merit list was only "provisional." It held that the list was provisional only for document verification, not for a wholesale change in the selection criteria itself. Candidates who cleared the exam and found a place in the list based on the advertised rules acquired a legitimate expectation that the final selection would be based on those same rules.
Limits of Power under Article 309: While acknowledging the State's wide power under Article 309 to frame and amend rules retrospectively, the Court held this power is not unbridled. It cannot be exercised to take away vested rights or arbitrarily disrupt a near-complete selection process to the detriment of candidates who participated under a specific set of rules.
Policy vs. Procedure: The Court distinguished between the validity of a policy (granting weightage to contractual employees) and its manner of implementation. It held that even a bona fide policy decision cannot be applied retrospectively to a selection process that was initiated and substantially completed under a different, pre-existing statutory regime.
4. Core Principle of the Judgment
Title: The Impermissibility of Retrospectively Altering Selection Criteria After Commencement of Recruitment
Main Issue Body & Analysis
The Supreme Court addressed the core conflict between administrative policy flexibility and the constitutional guarantee of fairness in public employment. The State's intent to reward contractual experience was not under challenge. The core issue was the timing and modality of implementing this policy.
The judgment powerfully reinforces the principle of procedural fairness and transparency in public recruitment. It holds that the critical date for fixing the selection criteria is the date of the advertisement inviting applications. Candidates mold their preparation and participation based on these announced criteria. To introduce a new, significant criterion (like 25% weightage for experience) after the crucial qualifying stage (the written exam) is over, is profoundly arbitrary. It creates an unfair advantage for a new class of candidates (those with contractual experience) and correspondingly prejudices those (like the appellants) who had legitimately succeeded under the old rules.
This creates an ex post facto evaluation, which is anathema to rule-based, transparent selection. The Court's analysis underscores that such a move not only breaches the candidates' legitimate expectation but also opens the door to potential malpractices and undermines public confidence in state recruitment.
5. Final Outcome
The appeal was allowed.
The judgment of the Patna High Court was set aside.
The Supreme Court directed the State of Bihar to finalize the appointments based on the merit lists published in June/July 2022, strictly following the unamended 2019 Rules (i.e., without applying the 2022 Amendment Rules granting weightage).
The appointments were to be completed within two months.
The Court also directed the High Court to decide on a related petition (CWJC No. 18429 of 2025) challenging the vires of the 2022 Amendment Rules on its own merits, clarifying that its present judgment was limited to the retrospective application of the rules.
6. MCQ Questions Based on the Judgment
Question 1: In the case of Abhay Kumar Patel vs. State of Bihar (2026), the Supreme Court primarily invoked which constitutional articles to strike down the retrospective application of the amendment to recruitment rules?
A) Articles 19 and 21
B) Articles 32 and 226
C) Articles 14 and 16
D) Articles 309 and 311
Question 2: The Supreme Court, in the Abhay Kumar Patel judgment, prohibited the retrospective change in recruitment criteria by applying the principle that?
A) The State's policy decisions are paramount.
B) A provisional merit list confers an indefeasible right to appointment.
C) The rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun.
D) Contractual employees must always be given preference.