Summary and Analysis of Partha Das & Ors vs The State of Tripura & Ors 2025 INSC 1049
1. Heading of the Judgment
Supreme Court Quashes Tripura Government's Mid-Process Recruitment Cancellation; Upholds Sanctity of Statutory Rules Over Executive Policy.
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment extensively deals with the conflict between executive power and statutory rules. The key legal provisions and concepts involved are:
Article 309 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the government to make rules for the recruitment and conditions of service of persons in public service. Rules framed under this proviso have the force of law (subordinate legislation).
Article 166 of the Constitution of India: Deals with the conduct of government business. Executive instructions and policies are issued under this authority.
The Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 (TSR Act) & The Tripura State Rifles (Recruitment) Rules, 1984 (TSR Rules): The specific statute and statutory rules governing the recruitment of Enrolled Followers.
Tripura Civil Service Rules, 1967 (TCS Rules) & Tripura Police Service Rules (TPS Rules): Statutory rules framed under Article 309 for Gazetted posts.
The Boilers Act, 1923 & Rules thereunder: The central and state rules governing the recruitment of Inspectors of Boilers.
Legal Doctrines:
Doctrine of Occupied Field: When a field is occupied by a statute or statutory rules, executive instructions cannot override them.
Legitimate Expectation: A candidate's right to expect a fair, non-arbitrary, and consistent selection process once it has commenced.
Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed After the Game Has Begun: A principle that the selection criteria cannot be altered after the recruitment process has started.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal
Judgment Date: August 28, 2025
Cases Decided: A common judgment resolving four sets of civil appeals:
Civil Appeal Nos. 4426-4466 & 4473-4479 of 2023: Partha Das & Ors. vs. State of Tripura (Regarding recruitment of Enrolled Followers in Tripura State Rifles).
Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-4469 & 4471 of 2023: State of Tripura vs. Samudra Debbarma & Ors. (Regarding recruitment for Tripura Civil Service (TCS) and Tripura Police Service (TPS) Grade-II posts).
Civil Appeal No. 4470 of 2023: State of Tripura vs. Arunabha Saha & Anr. (Regarding recruitment for the post of Inspector of Boilers).Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by candidates (Partha Das batch) and dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Tripura (Samudra Debbarma and Arunabha Saha batches). The High Court's order quashing the cancellation was upheld, and the state was directed to complete the stalled recruitment processes.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
Background and Core Issue
After the 2018 state elections, the new government of Tripura issued a New Recruitment Policy (NRP) on June 5, 2018. This policy aimed to standardize recruitment, increase transparency, and, most notably, reduce or abolish interviews for various posts (e.g., completely for Group-D, and limit to 10% of total marks for Group-A, B, and C posts).
To implement this new policy, the government first issued an "Abeyance Memorandum" (March 14, 2018) putting all ongoing recruitments on hold. This was followed by a "Cancellation Memorandum" (August 20, 2018) that cancelled all ongoing recruitment processes across the state, except one.
The core legal issue was whether the government, using its executive power (NRP), could cancel recruitment processes that were already being conducted under specific statutory rules (TSR Rules, TCS Rules, etc.).
The Supreme Court's Reasoning and Decision
The Court ruled in favor of the candidates and against the state government. Its reasoning can be broken down into four key principles:
1. Executive Instructions Cannot Override Statutory Rules (Doctrine of Occupied Field):
The Court held that the TSR Act/Rules and the Rules framed under Article 309 (TCS, TPS, Boiler Rules) are subordinate legislation and occupy the field of recruitment.
The NRP is merely an executive instruction issued under Article 166.
Established Law: Executive instructions can only supplement statutory rules if there is a gap or silence. They cannot supplant, amend, or override existing statutory rules.
Since the state had not amended the underlying statutory rules, the NRP could not be used to cancel a process running under those rules. The Cancellation Memorandum was, therefore, ultra vires (beyond its power) and without legal sanction.
2. Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed After the Game Has Begun:
The Court found that all the recruitment processes were at an advanced stage.
* For Enrolled Followers, the entire process (physical test, written exam, interview) was complete, and a provisional merit list was prepared. Only character verification was pending.
* For TCS/TPS, the preliminary and main examinations were complete. Only the interview (personality test) remained.
* For Inspector of Boilers, the written test and interview were complete. Only the declaration of the result was pending.Changing the recruitment criteria (by cancelling the process to re-start it without interviews or with changed weightage) after candidates had already participated based on the old rules is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The "rules of the game" are fixed at the time of advertisement and cannot be altered midway.
3. The NRP Was Meant to Be Prospective:
Clause (2) of the NRP itself stated: "All the above recommendations will be applicable with prospective effect only."
The Court interpreted this to mean the policy should apply to new recruitments initiated after the NRP's issuance, not to processes that were already ongoing.
4. Legitimate Expectation is Upheld (Though No Indefeasible Right to Appointment):
The Court reaffirmed that merely participating in a selection process does not give a candidate an indefeasible right to be appointed. The state has the discretion not to fill a post.
However, candidates do have a legitimate expectation that the government will act fairly and complete a selection process it started in a non-arbitrary manner.
The state failed to discharge its burden of proving that cancelling these advanced processes was for a larger public interest. The mere claim of wanting "transparency" was not enough, especially when the existing process was being conducted under statutory rules with no evidence of unfairness.
Final Directions
The Supreme Court:
Quashed the Abeyance Memorandum (14.03.2018) and Cancellation Memorandum (20.08.2018) concerning the recruitment processes for Enrolled Followers, TCS/TPS, and Inspector of Boilers.
Directed the State of Tripura to complete the stalled recruitment processes within strict deadlines:
Enrolled Followers: Complete the process (e.g., character verification and appointment) within 2 months.
TCS/TPS Grade-II: Declare the results of the main exam, conduct the personality test, and finalize appointments within 4 months.
Inspector of Boilers: Declare the results and finalize the appointment within 2 months.Ordered that all processes must be completed as per the original statutory rules that were in force when the advertisements were issued, ignoring the NRP.