AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
Petitioner applied for appointment as Chairman, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in response to an advertisement issued on 29.05.2025. By said advertisement, applications were invited for appointment against one post of Chairperson, SEIAA and one post of Expert Member, SEIAA, besides the positions in State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) (one Chairman and three Expert Members). Name of petitioner was recommended by the State Government to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India for appointment as Chairperson, SEIAA vide communication dated 24.02.2026.
The said recommendation, however, was withdrawn by the State Government by communication dated 17.08.2026 by stating that certain persons, who were recommended for appointment, have conflict of interest. Petitioner has challenged the said communication issued by the State Government on 17.08.2026.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not have any conflict of interest whatsoever, therefore, cancellation of the recommendation made by State Government in his favour is without any reason or justification whatsoever.
Learned State Counsel, on instructions, concedes that petitioner did not have any conflict of interest. He, however, submits that persons who are recommended for appointment as Member, SEIAA and other positions in SEAC had conflict of interest and since all the posts of SEIAA and SEAC were advertised together and all candidates who were found suitable were also recommended together, therefore, having regard to the fact that some persons who were recommended for appointment were having conflict of interest, therefore, it was decided that the entire recommendation be withdrawn. He further submits that all the vacancies have now been re-advertised on 11.09.2026.
Even a selected candidate does not have indefeasible right of appointment as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of “Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, reported in 1991 (3) SCC 47”. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment reads as under:-
“7.It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.”
In the present case, petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Chairman, SEIAA and his name was recommended, though without holding any selection. The State Government later withdrew its recommendation, which was made to the Central Government vide communication dated 24.02.2026.
Since withdrawal of recommendation by the State Government cannot be said to be arbitrary, as some of the candidates recommended for appointment had conflict of interest, thus, they became unfit for appointment as Member of SEIAA and SEAC, therefore, the act of State Government of withdrawing the recommendation, cannot be said to be arbitrary, which may warrant interference by this Court while exercising power of judicial review. Law is settled that mere selection do not create an indefeasible right of appointment.
Since vacancies have now been re-advertised and petitioner can very-well apply in response to the fresh advertisement, therefore, we refuse to interfere in the matter.
Since the vacancies have been re-advertised, therefore, petitioner shall be at liberty to apply in response to the fresh advertisement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today is the last date and petitioner has not applied so far due to pendency of this writ petition. We, therefore, extend the deadline and permit the petitioner to submit application in response to the advertisement dated 11.09.2026 within seven days.
The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.