The Jharkhand High Court has clearly ruled that a candidate does not have any vested or accrued right to challenge a change in recruitment policy before the issuance of an appointment letter. This decision was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava.
Background and Dispute
The case involved candidates who had applied for the post of Compounder and Pharmacist based on an advertisement by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. According to the advertisement, both posts carried the same pay scale of Rs. 5200–20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2800. The qualifications and syllabus for both posts were also the same.
The petitioners appeared for the exam and were declared successful. However, before appointment letters were issued, the State Government—through a notification dated 04.09.2019—amended the rules and reduced the pay scale for Compounders to Grade Pay Rs. 1900.
Petitioners’ Stand
The candidates challenged this change, arguing that since the pay scale for both posts was originally identical, reducing the pay for Compounders was arbitrary. They also pointed out that the Pharmacy Council of India had earlier re-designated Compounders as Pharmacists, thereby entitling them to the higher pay scale.
Read Also:- Jharkhand High Court Equips 496 Judicial Officers with Samsung Tablets to Enhance Digital Workflow
They further argued that the advertisement itself had declared a Grade Pay of Rs. 2800 and thus formed the basis of their expectations.
The State argued that the change was made before the petitioners were appointed, and since they joined the posts with knowledge of the reduced pay, they cannot now claim otherwise. It was also highlighted that no appointment letter had been issued when the rule was amended.
Court’s Observation and Ruling
“A mere recommendation made by the recruiting agency does not create any vested or accrued right.”
The Court observed that participating in a selection process does not give a candidate the right to challenge later policy decisions. Rights only arise once an official offer of appointment is issued. Since the policy was changed before the petitioners were appointed, their claim had no legal standing.
Read Also:- Jharkhand High Court: Divorce on Grounds of Desertion Requires Proof of Intention, Not Just Separation
Quoting earlier Supreme Court rulings, the bench explained the meaning of "vested rights"—a right that is complete and not based on future conditions. Since no such right existed in this case, the State was free to change its policy.
“A vested right means a right independent of any condition. It cannot be taken away without the consent of the person concerned.”
The court relied on two major precedents:
- MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh: Defined "vested right" as a right that is complete and cannot be taken away without consent.
- Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah: Clarified that laws should not retrospectively take away rights already in existence.
In this case, since the policy was changed before any formal offer, there was no breach of vested rights.
The court concluded that the petitioners had joined the service with full awareness of the reduced pay scale and accepted it. Therefore, they had no right to now challenge the change.
“The pay scale at the time of appointment, as per the amended rules, will apply.”
Accordingly, the review petition filed by the candidates was dismissed.
Case Name: Faiyaz Ahmad & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Review No. 107 of 2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Indrajit Sinha, Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondents: Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III
