The Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to reconstitute a Constitution Bench to hear the question of whether the "rules of the game" can be changed after the selection process has begun. The matter was heard by a 5-judge bench consisting of Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Mentioning the matter in front of a bench comprised of the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Advocate Mr. Kuriakose Varghese informed the bench that since Justices Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta have now retired, a new Constitution Bench should be formed to hear the matter.

The CJI stated that he would form a new 5-judge bench to hear the case.

A three-judge bench referred the case to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others (2013) 4 SCC 540. The bench in Tej Prakash questioned the correctness of an earlier decision, K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2008) 3 SCC 512, which held that changing the selection criteria midway through the process would amount to "changing the rules of the game after the game had been played, which is clearly impermissible." The Manjusree case ruled that a subsequent introduction of a cut-off for interview marks, which was not originally specified in the notification, was invalid.

Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur At Imphal and Anr (2016) 10 SCC 484 also dealt with almost a similar issue and has since been posted along with Tej Prakash (supra) by order dated August 10, 2017. The matter Sivanandan C.T. & Ors. v. High Court of Kerala & Ors., raising a similar point, has also been referred to the Constitution Bench. Notably, all these cases are concerned with the selection process for the appointment of District Judges.

Case Title: Tej Prakash Pathak And Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court And Ors.

Citation: C.A. No. 2634 of 2013