Tripura HC: Recruitment Rules Cannot Be Changed Midway, Quashes University's Cancellation Decision

The High Court of Tripura has dealt a major blow to institutional arbitrariness by quashing a Central University's decision to scrap a nearly completed recruitment process on the pretext of experts' unavailability and shifting reservation policies. This ruling reinforces that state instrumentalities cannot "change the rules of the game" once a selection process has commenced, ensuring that candidates are not left in legal limbo due to administrative failures.

A single-judge bench comprising Justice Biswajit Palit adjudicated upon the writ petition filed by a Professor serving at the Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology. The petitioner had challenged the Tripura University's decision to defer and subsequently cancel the recruitment process for the post of Professor (Pharmacy) after he was already shortlisted and called for an interview in 2017.

Judicial Rebukes on Administrative Lapses

The Court found that the University had initially deferred the petitioner’s interview on October 31, 2017, citing that the subject experts expressed inability to interview candidates specializing in Pharmaceutical Chemistry. The Court observed that the University failed to take proactive steps, such as inviting experts from other states, and instead allowed the process to stagnate for years.

Furthermore, the University attempted to justify the cancellation by pointing toward a new Reservation Policy for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) introduced in 2019. However, the Court noted that the University had filled other positions under the same 2016 advertisement while leaving the petitioner's specific post vacant.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...the subsequent changing roaster cannot vitiate the earlier process of advertisement would tantamount to changing the rules of the game... the respondent-University without any justification failed to call for Personal Interview of the petitioner for the post of Professor, Pharmacy and tried to defer the process with the plea of non-availability of experts for conducting interview..."

Directive Issued to Tripura University

The Court has the following directions:

"The respondent-University is hereby asked to conduct Personal Interview of the petitioner for the post of Professor, Pharmacy within a period of two months from the date of receipt copy of this judgment."

Key Takeaways:

Protection of Candidate Rights

Candidates who have reached the interview stage of a recruitment process possess a legitimate expectation of a fair conclusion, which cannot be arbitrarily disrupted by the employer.

Restriction on Retrospective Policy Application

New reservation policies or roster changes cannot be used to retrospectively invalidate ongoing recruitment processes that were initiated under previous legal frameworks.

Administrative Responsibility

Institutions cannot plead 'lack of experts' as a valid ground to indefinitely defer or cancel a recruitment process when alternatives like inviting external experts are available.

Ratio Decidendi:

A recruitment process commences with the issuance of an advertisement and cannot be changed or cancelled midway without substantive justification. Any such cancellation based on a subsequent change in rules or administrative convenience violates the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the established legal doctrine that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed after the game has started.

Background:

The dispute originated from an advertisement issued by Tripura University on May 5, 2016, for several faculty positions. The petitioner applied for the post of Professor (Pharmacy) and was shortlisted. On the day of the scheduled interview in October 2017, the University deferred the process because the available experts' specializations did not match the required field.

Despite multiple representations by the petitioner over the years, the University issued a communication on March 16, 2021, informing him that the process was cancelled. The University cited 2019 EWS reservation mandates and instructions from the Ministry of HRD. The petitioner approached the High Court arguing that since other posts from the same advertisement were filled, his exclusion was discriminatory. Relying on the precedent set in Prabhjot Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Ors. ( "(2025) SCC OnLine SC 761": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 812) and K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. ( "(2008) 3 SCC 512": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 228), the Court held that the University's actions were irrational and directed the completion of the interview process.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.(C)No.146 of 2025
NeutralCitation: 2026:THC:844
Case Title: Dr. Biplab De v. The Tripura University (A Central University) & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv, Mr. Tapash Debbarma, Adv, Mr. Samar Das, Adv, Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(TRI) 13