Partha Das And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Sanjay Karol, CJ

[1] The short point which arises for consideration is as to whether with the change of the Government, the process for selection and appointment to the post of Enrolled Followers (a term used for the lowest rung in the hierarchy of Police Service) can be interjected midway and as to whether, in public interest, this Court should quash the memorandum dated 20th August, 2018 keeping in abeyance the said selection process? As to whether petitioners have any indefeasible right for appointment as an Enrolled Followers and as to whether this Court can issue a writ of mandamus or any other direction or other order(s) to the Government of Tripura under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing completion of the process of recruitment and issue a letter of appointment to the petitioners?

[2] As mutually agreed, in this bunch of petitions, two cases i.e. WP(C) Nos.946/2018 and 982/2018 are being heard as lead cases. It is matter of record, as per the current roster these petitions were listed before the learned Single Judge when on 1st July, 2019 the following order was passed:

"01.07.2019

With the consent of the parties, following order is passed.

Considering the importance of the issues involved, it would only be appropriate that the matter is heard by the Division Bench of this Court.

Ordered accordingly.

Registrar (Judicial) to obtain instructions and have the matter listed at the earliest."

Consequently the matters were listed before the appropriate Division Bench on 16th July, 2019 and heard from time to time.

[3] Reliefs as sought for in WP(C) No.946/2018 titled as Partha Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors. read as under:

"(i) Issue NISI rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ/writs and/or order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued directing the respondents and/or each of them to produce all the relevant records pertaining to this writ petition;

(ii) Issue rule NISI calling upon the respondents and each of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for quashing/setting aside the impugned memorandum dated 20.08.2018 so far it relates to the selection of the petitioner;

(iii) Issue NISI rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ/writs and/or order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued commanding the respondents to act upon to complete the selections process and direct that the petitioner is entitled to get the offer of appointment;

AND/OR

(iv) After hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute, issuing direction to the respondents?"

[4] Reliefs as sought for in WP(C) No.982/2018 titled as Sujan Roy Vs. State of Tripura & 3 Ors. read as under:

"(i) Issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders, direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby quashing the Memo No.F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18, dated 14.03.2018, issued by the Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura.

(ii) Issue rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or/order/orders, direction/directions of like nature shall be not issued whereby directing the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner as Enrolled Follower of TSR in consequence of selection of the Petitioner in pursuance to the recruitment of Enrolled Followers in Tripura State Rifles against outside vacancies in pursuance to the selection process initiated vide Recruitment News, dated 14.09.2016, issued by the Commandant 6th Bn.(IR-II), Chairman, Recruitment Board of Enrolled followers in TSR Battalion outside the State quota;

(iii) Call for the records pertaining to the instant writ petitioner from the custody of the respondents and make the Rules absolute after hearing the both sides;

(iv) Make the Rules absolute after hearing the Parties And Pass any other order/orders as this Hon‟ble High Court may consider fit and proper."

[5] It is not in dispute that the State Government framed rules termed as Tripura State Rifles(Recruitment) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules') so notified on 6th February, 1985.

[6] The admitted fact being that vide advertisement dated 14th September, 2016, applications for recruitment to 372 (three hundred and seventy two) posts the post of Enrolled Followers were invited. Each one of the petitioners applied and participated in the process adopted by the authorities for selecting the candidates. Such selection was to be carried out in terms of the said Recruitment Rules.

[7] It is seen that the term "Enrolled Followers" comprises of Cooks, Masalchi, Water carriers, Mess servants, Ward boys, Washerman, Helpers or cleaners. They are in the lowest rank/rung of the hierarchy of Police Service. The procedure for enrolment is prescribed under Rule 10 and the eligibility criterion is prescribed under Rule 24 which are extracted as hereunder:

"10. Procedure for enrolment:

(1) The enrolment for different ranks shall be done in the manner prescribed in section 6 fo the Act.

(2) Every person, selected for enrolment, shall be put questions contained in the form of enrolment set out in Part - I of Appendix - II and shall, after having been cautioned that if he makes a false answer to any such question he shall be liable to punishment under the Act, record or cause to be recorded his answer to each such question. The recruitment form as set out in Part - III of Appendix - II and the enrolment form shall be signed after competition both by the person selected for enrolment and the enrolling Officer and thereafter the said person shall be deemed to be enrolled.

(3) Every person appointed as a member of the Rifles shall be administered with due ceremony, the Oath or Affirmation set out in Appendix - III after successful completion for its training.

(4) The Oath or Affirmation shall be administered by the Commandant by the Officer of the Rifles authorised in writing by the Commandant in this behalf.

(5) The Oath or affirmation shall be administered after the person to be attested has successfully completed his training. Failure to complete this training shall render the individual concerned liable to discharge without any compensation under the orders of the authority competent to make appointment to the rank to which the individual concerned was appointed.

(6) The officer administering the Oath or affirmation shall attest that he has done so by signing an attestation paper as given in Appendix - III which shall be attached to the Service Book of the person attested.

(7) The attestation may be waived by the Commandant in case of personnel deputed to his Battalion if they have already been administered such an Oath or Affirmation elsewhere."

"24. Recruitment Rules for the Posts of Enrolled Followers : Recruitment to the post of enrolled followers shall be made from amongst person who satisfy the following conditions, namely -

(a) should be in the age group of 18-21 years as on 1st day of July of the year in which advertisement for recruitment is made;

(b) should possess good physique;

(c) should be able to read and write a simple passage in their mother tongue: and

(d) should have proficiency in the work for which they are to be engaged; and

(e) should pass such test as may be specified by the Inspector- General in writing."

[8] By virtue of Rules 57, 58 and 59 the Government has the power to relax the rules; remove the doubts or any difficulties thereof.

[9] It is seen that there is no external agency for recruitment and everything is done in house.

[10] It is a matter of record that prior to the completion and finalization of the process of selection and/or appointment of the candidates to the said post of Enrolled Followers, there was a change in the Government with a new political party elected by the people of Tripura. From 1993 to 2018, the Government formed was only of one political party and after the fresh elections on 3rd March, 2018 a new Government was formed by another political party which took certain decisions on various policies of the State. One such decision being with regard to the recruitment/selection of employees in all the departments of Government of Tripura.

[11] Consequently, a memorandum dated 14th March, 2018 was issued which reads as under:

No.F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18

GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (PERSONNEL & TRAINING) DEPARTMENT. Dated, Agartala, the 14th March, 2018.

_M_E_M_O_R_A_N_D_U_M_

Sub : Recruitment/selection process in all Department kept in abeyance.

The undersigned is directed to state that the State Government has decided that the recruitment process of the Government shall be reviewed and pending such review, all the ongoing recruitment/selection processes in Departments/ autonomous bodies etc. under the Government, shall be kept in abeyance with immediate effect, However, the recruitment process initiated on the directions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court/High Court or any other court within the State shall not be stopped without obtaining specific orders from the concerned court in this regard.

All Departments/Heads of Departments, Autonomous bodies are, therefore, requested to comply the same and make necessary arrangement for further circulation of the aforesaid instruction to their subordinate offices also for necessary compliance.

-Sd-

( Santosh Das ) Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura." (Emphasis supplied).

[12] The process initiated by virtue of advertisement dated 14th September, 2016 could not be completed and as notified on 5th June, 2018 a new recruitment policy was formulated with respect to all of the establishments under the administrative control of Government of Tripura. The same reads as under:

"GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (PERSONNEL & TRAINING) DEPARTMENT

No.F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/13 Dated, Agartala, 5th June, 2018.

_N_O_T_I_F_I_C_A_T_I_O_N_

Subject :- New Recruitment Policy for all establishments under administrative control of the Government of Tripura.

In supersession of all earlier instructions in connection with selection/recruitment of different categories of candidates by direct recruitment for government employment under the administrative control of Government of Tripura, the State Government has decided the following principles :-

1.1 Written test should be primary means to test suitability of candidates for Government jobs. The test should be designed in such a manner that the required skills and competencies can be tested in an online mode. For such posts where special skills are required, separate proficiency/personality test may be taken in a transparent manner.

1.2 Interview should be completely abolished for Group-D posts, however soft skill test may be taken.

1.3. Interview should ordinarily, not be taken for B and C category of posts. However, only in exceptional circumstances, for certain categories of Group-B and C posts, where justification is given by the Department concerned, provision for interview/skill test may be kept with prior approval of the Cabinet. Further, wherever such a provision is kept, the weightage for interview/skill test should not exceed 10% of total marks and the interview should be video-graphed.

1.4 The Group-A, Group-B and C posts which are at present covered by TPSC will continue to be filled as per the existing practice. However, weightage for the interview should not exceed 10% of total marks. In exceptional case weightage of interview may be increased beyond 10% with the approval of cabinet, if sufficient justification exists.

1.5. There are certain Group-A posts, which are at present outside the purview of TPSC. For the time being, this system may continue subject to the condition that the processes shall be made more fair, open and transparent. Adequate changes shall be made in the recruitment process/rules for these posts so that selection is done on the basis of written exam followed by interview with weightage of latter not being more than 10%. Further, review should be taken up by the concerned Departments to narrow down this category so that over a period of time, as far as practicable, all such posts are filled through recruitment conducted by TPSC.

1.6. Keeping in view the need to have a highly professional cadre at higher positions in the Government, recruitment for the left over (remaining Group-B) posts should also be taken up by TPSC.

1.7. The posts in Police, Fire Service and Jail Department which are currently outside the purview of TPSC should be filled by the respective Departments subject to the overall principles proposed at Para-1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 above.

1.8 There is a need to revise the existing Recruitment Rules(RRs) such that there is proper mapping/correlation between the qualification, competencies and job profile. Further, in such cases where there is similarity in the nature of jobs or jobs are common across various Departments, the RRs have to be suitably revised to bring in a greater degree of uniformity so as to facilitate common recruitment as far as practicable.

1.9 For the posts where there is intake by both direct recruitment and promotion, the intake ratio from each stream(direct and promotion) should, to the extent possible, be kept uniform across all the Departments.

1.10 The role of TPSC may be expanded and suitable manpower and resources may be placed at its disposal to enable it to ensure recruitment following the recruitment principles mentioned above.

1.11 A new institution may be set up which may take up the recruitments for all Group-B, C and D posts, excluding the posts covered in Para 1.4 above. This body may function within the broad principles proposed at Para 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. For this, further follow up action may be taken by GA(P&T) Department.

All the above recommendations will be applicable with the prospective effect only.

The Revised General Employment Guidelines for all Departments of the State Government for selection of candidates by open interview for Group-C and Group-D posts to be filled up by direct recruitment issued vide Memorandum No.F.23(8)-GA(P&T)/14 dated 23rd July, 2016 is hereby repealed and replaced by this Notification.

By order of the Governor

Sd/-

(Santosh Das) Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura." (Emphasis supplied).

[13] Thereafter the Government of Tripura cancelled the provisions of recruitment by issuing yet another memorandum dated 20th August, 2018 which reads as under:

"No.F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18

GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (PERSONAL & TRAINING) DEPARTMENT Dated, Agartala, 20th August, 2018.

_M_E_M_O_R_A_N_D_U_M_

Subject :- Recruitment/Selection process as per New Recruitment Policy.

Attention is invited to his Department‟s Memorandum of even number dated 14.03.2018 wherein all the recruitment/selection processes were kept in abeyance w.e.f. 14.03.2018 until further orders.

The State Government has now notified a New Recruitment Policy vide this Department‟s Notification of even number dated 05.06.2018. Accordingly, the Memorandum issued vide No.F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18 dated 14.03.2018 now stands superseded.

The competent authority in the State Government has decided that in view of the New Recruitment Policy approved by the Government, all new appointments should be approved by the Government, all new appointments should be made as per the New Recruitment Policy and all existing recruitment processes initiated by the respective Departments or the TPSC, hereby, stand cancelled excepting ongoing recruitment of Tripura Judicial Service Grade -III only for which specific exemption has been accorded in consultation with the Hon‟ble High Court of Tripura.

As regards the candidates who had participated in the cancelled recruitment processes, they are to be given one time relaxation in upper age limit to enable them to participate once in the fresh recruitment process subject to providing documentary evidence of their participation in the earlier recruitment processes for the same post(s).

It is also directed that henceforth, all direct recruitment should be made strictly as per guidelines contained in the new Recruitment Policy issued bide Notification No.F.20(1)-GA(P & T)/18 dated 05.06.2018 together with prior concurrence of the Finance Department, the GA(P&T) Department and the approval of the Council of Ministers.

All Departments are, therefore, advised to strictly comply with these decisions.

(Vishwasree B)

Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura." (Emphasis supplied).

[14] It is thus seen that first the Government decided to put in abeyance all recruitment process and thereafter, after formulating a new policy, bringing in transparency, after laying down certain criterion decided to amend the respective rules and fill up all vacancies in terms thereof but with prior concurrence of the Finance Department.

[15] The decision to intercept and cancel the ongoing recruitment process, perhaps, was actuated on account of the decision rendered by this Court in Tanmoy Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors., (2014) 2 TLR 731 (2 Judge Bench)

wherein the Court, while setting aside the earlier policies of recruitment to various Departments of Government and cancelling the appointment of more than 10,000 „Teachers‟, held the process to be nothing but "a cruel joke on the youth of Tripura". Significantly, such decision stands substantially affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 29th March, 2017 rendered in Special Leave to Appeal C Nos.18993-19049/2014 titled as The State of Tripura & Ors & Etc. Vs. Tanmoy Nath & Ors. & Etc.

[16] It is in this backdrop, this Court does not find favour with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that with the mere change of the Government, or there being nothing wrong with the instant selection process, such process should not be allowed to be interjected and a direction in the nature of mandamus issued for completion thereof. No list of the selected candidates was prepared or notified. Prior to the completion of the process of selection the State intervened and the process was interjected. No legal right, statutory or otherwise was/could have been conferred upon the petitioners. It is in these circumstances, we proceed to adjudicate the matters.

[17] Recruitment, necessarily has to be as per statutory rules and Government memorandum/instructions issued on the administrative side cannot prevail thereupon. Equally administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules. To substantiate the same, Mr. Sankar Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has referred to and relied upon the decisions rendered in Ajoy Kumar Das Vs. State of Orissa and ors., (2011) 11 SCC 136 (2 Judge Bench) and Union of India and Anr. Vs. Central Electrical & Mechanical Engineering Service (CE &MES) Group 'A' (Direct Recruits) Assn., CPWD and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 354(2 Judge Bench). Well there cannot be any dispute with regard thereto. But noticeably, neither the notification nor memorandum has any overriding effect over the rules, nor is there any intent on the part of the Government to do so. Rules are to be reframed to make it in sync with the policy decision.

[18] Equally Government is obliged to act fairly. This is what both Mr. Sankar Bhattacharya and Mr. P Roy Barman, learned counsel for the petitioners, rightly contend while referring the decision rendered in A. P. Agarwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., (2000)1 SCC 600 (3 Judge Bench). However, what is required to be seen is the backdrop in which the notification/memorandum came to be issued. The Government had bona fide and justifiable reasons to keep in abeyance the selection process, with the only exception of being compliance of judicial order(s).

[19] Notification dated 5th June, 2018 containing the new recruitment policy was with the avowed object and purpose of instilling faith of the people in the selection process and making the whole process transparent and fair, and also selecting the most meritorious candidate. As per the new policy, the process of interview, insofar as possible was to be completely abolished. Written test was to be introduced. For certain posts, recruitment was to take place only through a centralised agency i.e. Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC). The Recruitment Rules were required to be properly mapped and co-related in the backdrop of the qualifications and competencies in the job profile. Also greater degree of uniformity was to be brought in so as to facilitate common recruitment, as far as possible, to the extent it would become possible. For oral interview, wherever necessary weightage should not be more than 10% and all this was to rule out any possibility of misuse or abuse of discretion. Also the old recruitment policy notified vide memorandum dated 23rd July, 2016 stood repealed.

[20] Realizing, perhaps that candidates such like the present petitioners may be facing certain difficulties and hardships or could be eliminated out of the process of recruitment for all times to come, the Government issued the memorandum dated 20th August, 2018, clarifying that all candidates who had already participated in the cancelled recruitment process would be eligible to participate in the fresh recruitment process, notwithstanding the prescription of age limit, which be construed to be relaxed, on one time basis.

[21] Evidently the Government took a decision to amend the rules; bringing in transparency and fairness into the system by centralizing the recruitment process and also protecting interests of the candidates who had already participated in the ongoing recruitment process.

[22] It is in this backdrop, principle of promissory estoppels or legitimate expectation cannot be invoked, for no right can be said to have accrued in favour or conferred upon the petitioners, more so in view of the fact that they were neither assured nor guaranteed of their selection or appointment. It is not a case where petitioners‟ gave up their earlier appointments or altered their positions on the promise or offer of appointment. It is in this backdrop, this Court finds the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., (2002) 2 SCC 507 (2 Judge Bench) and Jitendra Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 161 (2 Judge Bench) so relied upon by the petitioners, not to be applicable on facts.

[23] In fact Jitendra Kumar(supra) the Court itself clarified that the doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel would not be applicable, for legitimate expectation is not the same as anticipation. It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. The Court in Para - 57 of the report, categorically held that it is the public interest which would matter the most. The successor Government cannot blink over the illegality committed by the previous Government which required to be corrected. In the said decision the Court was dealing with a case where appointment to the post of Haryana Civil Service(Executive Branch) in Allied Services was stalled with the change of the Government for the reason that such action was tainted with arbitrariness and undue haste. An enquiry also stood instituted. Significantly, the Court did not interfere, holding public interest to be supreme, also examining the issue required to be weighed, by taking an overall view of the entire factual background and matrix.

[24] The decision rendered in State of Haryana Vs. State of Punjab(supra) is with regard to the abandoning of the project in which more than 700 crores of public revenue stood invested for the purpose of construction of SYL Canal, which was sought to be reviewed by the newly elected Government. It was in this backdrop the Court intervened but the decision is not at all applicable.

[25] In R S Mittal Vs. Union of India, 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 230 (2 Judge Bench) the Court only held that the appointing authority cannot ignore the select-panel or decline to make appointment on its mere whims or fancies and that there has to be a justifiable reason to decline appointment of a person whose name figured in the select-panel.

[26] The said ration applies with equal force to the instant facts.

[27] The Constitution Bench (5 Judges) in Sankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 has clearly held that a successful candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed to a post only as a result of his participation therein. Further, notification is mere invitation to a qualified candidate to apply for recruitment and even if selected, it does not confer any right to the post. Equally, state is under no obligation to fill up all or any one of the vacancies. Also the State cannot act in an arbitrary manner and the decision to fill or not to fill up the posts has to be taken bona fidely, emanating out of appropriate reasons.

[28] In Subha B Nair and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 210 (2 Judge Bench) the Court clearly held that unless action of the Government is discriminatory or arbitrary or cannot be said to be bona fide, mandamus cannot be issued to fill up the post.

[29] In Manoj Manu and Anr. Vs. Union of Indian and Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 171 (2 Judge Bench) the Court has clearly held that if the decision of the Government not to fill up the required/advertised vacancies is based on sound, rationale and conscious application of mind, then no mandamus can be issued to fill up the vacancies. The principle stands reiterated in Kulwinder Pal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.,(2016) 6 SCC 532 (2 Judge Bench) and Gurmeet Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.,(2018) 7 SCC 260 (2 Judge Bench).

[See : Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Shariff and Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1210 (Constitution Bench-5 Judge); Dr. Umakant Saran Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.,(1973) 1 SCC 485 (4 Judge Bench) and Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.(2016) 11 SCC 113 (2 Judge Bench)].

[30] In State of Manipur and Anr. Vs. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei and Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 331 (3 Judge Bench) the Apex Court observed as under :

"11. ...................... there is no indefeasible right for appointment merely because a candidate is found fit on the basis of a selection. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. .............

The policy decision of the Government dated 19-3-2001 cancelling all the selections that were made earlier and banning any further recruitment was part of the record which could not have been ignored by the High Court. There was sufficient justification for the Government of Manipur to ban recruitment. The Government was compelled to take such decision in view of the financial crisis. The said decision of the Government cannot be said to be arbitrary under any circumstances. The policy decision of the Government of Manipur dated 19-3-2001 was bona fide and the respondents cannot assert any right for appointment on the basis of the selections conducted it the year 1999.

Even assuming that the successor entities of the Electricity Department have an obligation to defend the actions and decisions of the Electricity Department, it is relevant to note that the decision dated 19-3-2001 of the appellant cancelling the selections conducted before that date had not been questioned by the respondents. In any event, the respondents do not have a legal right to seek appointment to the posts of Assistant Line Man as the selections stood cancelled by the policy decision dated 19-3-2001. We are unable to agree with the High Court‟s direction for appointment of the respondents in the posts of Junior System Assistants which were advertised in 2016." (Emphasis supplied).

[31] The principle of „Wednesbury" - Reasonableness - and proportionality as expounded from time to time, in the context of least injuries or minimal impairment stands considered and reiterated by the Apex Court in Gohil Vishbaraj Hanubhai and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2017) 13 SCC 621 (2 Judge Bench). The indefeasible right, if any, or otherwise in a candidate who had just participated in the selection process is not dependent upon mere factum of his participation therein, but action of the Government in interjecting the same.

[32] In fact, in Mani Subrat Jain and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.,(1977) 1 SCC 486 (3 Judge Bench) the Court observed as under :

"9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something (See Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol.I, paragraph 122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors, (1974) 3 SCC 220.; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 671 and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198.) (Emphasis supplied).

Questions of law are answered thus.

[33] The interjection in the process of selection and appointment of the post of Enrolled Followers was not simply and purely on account of change of the Government. It was a policy decision based on relevant considerations and more so in public interest. The memorandum dated 20th August, 2018 keeping in abeyance and then cancelling the ongoing selection process cannot be quashed for it not to be, in any manner, arbitrary or whimsical. Petitioners do not have any indefeasible right for appointment as Enrolled Follower. Also they do not have any right statutory or otherwise of demanding an appointment on the basis of process for selection which stood initiated at some point in time. Equally, no mandamus would lie in directing the State to complete the process of recruitment and selection and issue a letter of appointment in their favour.

[34] As such, for the aforesaid reasons the petitions cannot be allowed which are hereby rejected. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.