Supreme Court Holds Executive Policy Cannot Supplant Statutory Recruitment Rules; Directs Completion Of Affected Selections

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal heard a cluster of appeals arising from multiple writ petitions in the Tripura High Court that challenged the State Government’s decision to put ongoing recruitments in abeyance and to cancel them in favour of a New Recruitment Policy (NRP). The petitions and appeals concerned recruitments ranging from Class‑IV “Enrolled Followers” in the Tripura State Rifles to Group‑A posts in Tripura Civil and Police Services and the post of Inspector of Boilers.

The Court summarised that executive orders and policy decisions could not be employed to override or supplant statutory rules framed under Article 309 or specific enactments. It held that where recruitment had been conducted under statutory rules and regulations, the executive “could only supplement” but could not “supplant” those rules; the NRP could not be applied retrospectively to processes already substantially completed; and affected candidates had a legitimate expectation of fair completion of the process. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further noted the NRP’s own statement that “all the above recommendations will be applicable with prospective effect only.”

Background The disputes arose from separate recruitment drives initiated under statutory schemes: recruitment to Enrolled Followers under the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 and Rules, recruitments to Tripura Civil Service (TCS) Grade‑II and Tripura Police Service (TPS) Grade‑II under rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 and regulations issued in consultation with the Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC), and recruitment to Inspector of Boilers under the Boilers Act and attendant State rules. In each process the statutory procedure—advertisement, physical/screening tests, written/main examinations and interviews/personality tests—had proceeded to an advanced stage before the State issued an Abeyance Memorandum of 14.03.2018 directing that ongoing recruitments “shall be kept in abeyance” pending review. The State thereafter issued the NRP on 05.06.2018 and a Cancellation Memorandum on 20.08.2018 directing that ongoing recruitment processes be cancelled and future appointments be made as per NRP; the TPSC issued consequential cancellation notices.

High Court benches had delivered differing outcomes across batches: in the case concerning Enrolled Followers the High Court had dismissed writ petitions; in the TCS/TPS and Inspector of Boilers matters the Single Judge and the Division Bench granted relief by quashing the cancellation so far as it affected those recruitments and directing completion of processes. Parties debated whether administrative policy could be applied to ongoing statutory recruitments, and whether candidates acquired any indefeasible right or a protected legitimate expectation once they had participated in selection stages. The Supreme Court drew on precedents including Sant Ram Sharma, Tej Prakash Pathak, Sivanandan C.T., Shankarsan Dash and other decisions affirming that executive instructions could supplement but not override statutory rules, that policy changes expressed to have only prospective effect could not be imposed retroactively, and that while mere participation did not create an absolute right to appointment, candidates did have a legitimate expectation of fair completion when selection had been undertaken pursuant to statutory rules.

Disposition and directions were tailored to each batch: the Court quashed the Abeyance and Cancellation memoranda insofar as they were applied to the Enrolled Followers recruitment and ordered finalisation of that process within two months; in the TCS/TPS matters the State’s appeals were dismissed and the High Court directions to conclude the main examination results and the personality tests within four months were maintained; in the Inspector of Boilers matter the State’s appeal was dismissed and the recruitment was directed to be completed within two months. The Court emphasised that NRP’s recommendations applied prospectively and that the State had not discharged the burden of showing overriding public interest sufficient to frustrate candidates’ legitimate expectations.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1049 (Civil Appeal Nos. 4426–4466, 4473–4479, 4467–4469, 4470–4471 of 2023 and connected matters) Case Title: Partha Das & Ors. v. The State of Tripura & Ors. (and connected appeals including State of Tripura v. Samudra Debbarma & Ors.; State of Tripura v. Arunabha Saha & Anr.) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Senior Counsel; Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Counsel For the Respondent(s): Col. R. Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel (for the State)