AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Regard being had to similitude of the controversy and facts involved in all the above petitions, they have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common order, however, for the sake of convenience, the facts of WP No. 15786/2016 are taken into consideration.
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-
It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the decision dated 24/8/2016 so far as cancellation of appointment process with regard to Class-III & Class-IV employees.
It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to give appointment letter in pursuance to merit-list published by the respondent University whereby names of the petitioners reflect at S.No...
That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to produce all relevant documents pertaining to appointment and cancellation of Class-III & Class-IV employees for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
Any other relief that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased and think appropriate to grant.
It is the case of the petitioners that they had participated in the recruitment process initiated by the respondent-University in the year 2014 for appointment to Class-III and Class-IV posts and the said recruitment process was cancelled by impugned resolution of the university hence they are aggrieved by the impugned resolution.
It is submitted that in the year 2008, the respondent-University constituted a committee for preparation of a Model Roster against sanctioned Class-III and Class-IV posts. Thereafter, the State Government issued circulars dated 18.04.2013 (Annexure P/2) and 10.07.2013 (Annexure P/4) for filling up backlog vacancies. The Office of the Governor also issued a letter dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P/5) directing the Universities to fill up vacant posts.
It is submitted that pursuant to the said circulars, special recruitment programmes were initiated by the State Government vide letters dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P/6) and 14.07.2014 (Annexure P/7). The Department of Higher Education, vide letters dated 02.08.2014 (Annexure P/8) and 31.10.2014 (Annexure P/9), directed the respondent-University to fill up Class-III and Class-IV reserved and unreserved vacancies.
Accordingly, the University initiated the recruitment process and issued advertisements dated 27.06.2014 and 18.09.2014 (Annexure P/10), pursuant to which applications were received. A scrutiny committee was constituted on 18.09.2014 and thereafter the selection process including the written examination was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines.
It is submitted that as the result was not declared, one Ashutosh Upadhyay and three others filed W.P. No.4591/2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.04.2015 (Annexure P/11), directing the respondents to complete the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisements dated 27.06.2014 and 18.09.2014 within one month from receipt of the certified copy of the order.
The University, vide letter dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure P/12), informed that the recruitment process could not be completed due to the election. Thereafter, the State Government again initiated a special recruitment drive for filling up backlog vacancies vide letter dated 15.07.2015.
It is submitted that pursuant to the order dated 13.04.2015 passed in W.P. No.4591/2015, the University declared the written examination result on 18.07.2015 (Annexure P/13), in which all the petitioners were selected for their respective posts. Thereafter, vide letter dated 03.08.2015 (Annexure P/14), the Registrar informed the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department that objections were being examined and interviews would be conducted shortly. However, on 20.08.2015 (Annexure P/15), the Executive Committee decided to cancel the recruitment process on the ground of want of Government permission.
It is submitted that the State Government again directed for filling up of backlog vacancies vide circular dated 05.02.2016 (Annexure P/17). Thereafter, the Executive Committee constituted a scrutiny committee on 29.03.2016 to examine complaints against the examination results, which was approved vide minutes dated 13.04.2016 (Annexures P/19).
It is submitted that the scrutiny committee submitted its report dated 26.07.2016, which was placed before the Executive Committee on 24.08.2016 (Annexure P/20). On the same date, the Executive Committee cancelled the entire recruitment process initiated pursuant to the 2014 advertisements, without assigning any cogent reason.
The Registrar, vide letter dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P/21) also informed the Principal Secretary that the recruitment process had been cancelled without any concrete reason. Hence, this petition has been filed challenging the impugned decision dated 24.08.2016 (Annexure P/20) as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law.
The respondents have filed reply contending that pursuant to the advertisements issued by the University, the recruitment process was initiated, applications were received and the written examination was conducted. However, several complaints were received alleging irregularities, favouritism and corruption in the selection process. Complaints were also made before the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and Lokayukta and enquiries were initiated. Copies of the complaints and relevant communications are filed as Annexures R/1 and R/2.
It is submitted that in view of the complaints and pending enquiries, the recruitment process was stalled to ensure transparency, fairness and to avoid any illegal appointments. The matter was placed before the competent Executive Council, which, after considering the complaints and the material available on record, decided on 24.08.2016 to cancel the entire recruitment process. The decision was subsequently notified vide notification dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure R-2/3).
The State Government had also directed vide order dated 06.01.2015 (Annexure R-2/4) that where the recruitment process was not completed within six months, the applications and fees were liable to be refunded, treating the process as lapsed. Accordingly, the University initiated the process for refund of application fees.
It is submitted that mere participation in the written examination or qualifying the said examination does not confer any vested right to appointment. The competent authority is entitled to cancel a selection process if serious complaints or prima facie irregularities, favouritism or corruption are found. The verification of OMR sheets and marks were also questioned and a committee was constituted to examine the objections. The Executive Council considered the matter in detail and, having regard to the complaints and material on record, found it necessary to cancel the process.
It is submitted that the High Court vide order dated 13.04.2015 passed in W.P. No.4591/2015 merely directed completion of the recruitment process, which did not confer any right of appointment upon the petitioners or require the University to make appointments pursuant to an allegedly tainted selection process.
The allegations regarding favouritism and undue benefit to relatives of certain officials along with other complaints concerning the selection process, necessitated cancellation in the interest of transparency and fairness. The Executive Council, being the competent authority, therefore rightly exercised its powers after due consideration of the entire matter.
It is submitted that the petitioners have thus failed to establish any enforceable right to appointment. The impugned decision dated 24.08.2016 was taken by the competent authority in the interest of a fair and transparent recruitment process and does not warrant interference. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
The petitioners have filed the rejoinder reiterating the same facts as in the petition, however, in addition, the petitioners have submitted that subsequently the Executive Council constituted a Three-Member Committee to examine the applications of the Class III and IV employees and the alleged irregularities. The Committee submitted its recommendations, which were placed before the Executive Council. However, despite its specific mandate and the University's own statements before the Vidhansabha and the authorities that further action would be taken on receipt of the Committee's report, the recommendations were not considered and the earlier decision cancelling the appointment process was reiterated.
The respondents have filed additional return, but they have merely reiterated the facts and submissions already stated in their return.
It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that by the impugned decision, the selection process initiated for the recruitment of certain posts by the respondent University was cancelled. It is submitted that vide resolution dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure P/15), the matter was taken up by the Executive Council and without any reason, the recruitment process was cancelled. It is further submitted that the said decision was again reiterated by the impugned resolution dated 24.08.2016 (Annexure P/20). In the said resolution also, there was no reason assigned for cancellation of the entire process. It is further submitted that if any decision is rendered by the authorities in public domain without reason then it is against the principle of administrative law and cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that it has been legitimate expectation of the selectees that if they have secured the selection process then they shall be appointed accordingly. Any decision cancelling the process affects their expectation and is not expected from the ‘State’ which executes its function impartially.
It is also submitted that the Registrar of the University vide letter dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P/21) has written a letter to the State that the recruitment process which has been carried out by the University does not suffer from any irregularity.
It is further submitted that the complaints relied upon by the respondents do not allege any illegality, irregularity, favouritism or manipulation in the recruitment process. The complaints merely seek disclosure/re-examination of answer sheets or reasons for non-selection, such as non-inclusion of the candidates' names in the result or dissatisfaction with the marks obtained. Thus, none of the complaints contains any allegation suggesting that an ineligible candidate was selected or that the selection process was vitiated by favouritism or malpractice.
It is further submitted that the documents relied upon as Annexures R-2 and R-3 are merely communications from the EOW and Lokayukta seeking information in respect of the complaints. Subsequently, the matters were duly enquired into and closed after investigation, nothing adverse having been found. Therefore, mere issuance of such query letters cannot be treated as evidence of any mass-scale irregularity in the recruitment process.
It is further submitted that that the respondents have also failed to point out any statutory provision or rule requiring prior Government permission for the recruitment in question. In the absence of any such provision, cancellation of the entire selection process on the ground of want of prior approval is wholly unsustainable.
To bolster his submission, learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Partha Das and others vs. State of Tripura reported in SCC Online SC 1844 and Pawan Kumar Tiwary vs. Jharkhand Electricity Board reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1751 .
Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has submitted that various complaints in regard to the irregularities in the selection process were made and on the basis of said complaints, the Economic Offences Wing as well as Lokayukta organization have registered complaints and sought information from the University in regard to the irregularities vide Annexure R-2/3.
It is further submitted that due to certain allegations in regard to bias for selecting some of the candidates who are close relatives of the employees of the University, the Executive Council, in its meeting dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure P/15) has taken decision to cancel the entire process.
It is submitted that it is not the case where the decision has been taken without reason, but, in fact, the decision may not be recorded in so many words, but, in sum and substance, the decision was taken for the reason that there were some irregularities which were reported to various organizations. Finding that the selection process suffers from bias and unfairness, the entire process has been cancelled .
It is further submitted that for issuance of a writ of mandamus, the petitioners have to demonstrate their fundamental right which has been infringed by the action of the respondents, for which they can demand for justice. It is further submitted that mere selection in the selection process will not create any indefeasible right in favor of the petitioners for which they can allege that there was an infringement.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the letter dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P/21) issued by the Registrar of the University was just a day prior to his retirement. Therefore, it can be gathered that it was issued for extraneous reasons.
Learned Advocate General has relied upon the order passed by the coordinate Bench in WP No. 18448/2019 - Vikas Tiwari vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 04.03.2025 to substantiate that in similar facts of the case, the selection process was cancelled, which was put to challenge in the writ petition and same was affirmed by this Court.
Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sachin Kumar and others vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) reported in (2021) 4 SCC 631 to submit that recruitment to public service must command public confidence and irregularity erode the credibility and public confidence in the recruitment process. To support his submission, learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha and others reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220 .
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The core question, which arises for consideration before this Court, is whether the respondent-University was justified in cancelling the entire recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisements dated 27.06.2014 and 18.09.2014 for Class-III and Class-IV posts, particularly when the petitioners had participated in the selection process and were declared successful, on the ground of complaints alleging irregularities, favouritism and corruption in the selection process, and whether such cancellation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is sustainable in law or not.
It is not in dispute that the respondent-University initiated recruitment pursuant to the advertisements dated 27.06.2014 and 18.09.2014 for Class-III and Class-IV posts. The petitioners participated in the selection process and were declared successful in the written examination. However, the entire selection process has been cancelled by the respondents by the impugned decision.
The respondents have justified cancellation of the process on the basis of complaints alleging irregularities, favouritism and corruption and the communications received from the EOW and Lokayukta. However, mere receipt of complaints or seeking of information by an investigating agency cannot by itself establish that the entire selection process was vitiated. No specific finding of large-scale malpractice, manipulation of answer sheets, selection of ineligible candidates or systemic irregularity has been brought on record.
Significantly, the Executive Council had constituted a scrutiny committee to examine the complaints and its report dated 26.07.2016 was placed before Executive Council on 24.08.2016. However, the impugned resolution does not disclose what specific irregularities were found in the report or why such irregularities warranted cancellation of the entire selection process. Thus, the decision lacks cogent and discernible reasons. In fact, a report which has been brought on record contains only production of answer sheets and corresponding results. No finding in regard to any irregularities has been recorded.
The contention of the respondents that the Executive Council was competent to cancel the process cannot be disputed in principle; however, such power has to be exercised fairly, reasonably and on the basis of relevant material. The decision must also disclose the reasons which led the authority to take the drastic step of cancelling the entire recruitment process.
The judgment in Sachin Kumar and Subhash Chander Marwaha (supra), relied upon by the respondents, are distinguishable, as those cases involved material demonstrating serious/systemic irregularities affecting the credibility of the selection process. Similarly, the decision in Vikas Tiwari (supra) decided on 04.03.2025 is distinguishable on its facts. On the other hand, the judgments relied upon by the petitioners support the proposition that cancellation of a recruitment process cannot be arbitrary or unsupported by relevant reasons.
The judgments relied upon by the petitioners in the cases of Partha Das (supra) and Pawan Kumar Tiwary (supra) support the case of the petitioners to the extent that cancellation of a recruitment process cannot be sustained merely on the basis of vague allegations or unsubstantiated complaints, particularly when the authority has failed to disclose cogent reasons for taking such a drastic decision. The said decisions, however, do not lay down that a selected candidate acquires an indefeasible right to appointment; rather, they emphasize that the decision of the competent authority must be based upon relevant material and must withstand the test of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. In the present case, the respondents have failed to demonstrate such material or reasons warranting cancellation of the entire recruitment process.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Tiwary (supra) has held as under:-
31.The jurisprudence around irregular v. illegal appointments must not be blurred. An irregular appointment is one where procedure is not strictly followed but the appointee is otherwise qualified and the post is sanctioned. An illegal appointment, on the other hand, is void ab initio, such as where the appointee is ineligible or the post does not exist. When appointments are questioned on grounds of irregularity, the inquiry must not end with detecting the infirmity but must proceed further to distinguish those whose appointments are unimpeachable. Justice demands separation, not erasure.
32.The High Court failed to apply the test of individual scrutiny, which is now a bedrock requirement in service jurisprudence. When appointments of large numbers of persons are questioned, courts and authorities must:(i) Separate the legally sustainable from the unsustainable(ii) Apply the test of eligibility and sanctioned strength(iii) Assess whether there was fraud or misrepresentation(iv) Provide an opportunity of hearing before cancellation
33.The action of the Board in cancelling the appellants' appointments en masse without affording them an opportunity of hearing and without considering the legality of each appointment separately reflects not only a violation of principles of natural justice but also abdication of the duty to make reasoned, individualized decisions.
Further in the case of Partha Das (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
19.Learned senior counsel also contended that Clause (2) of NRP has been wrongly interpreted by the appellants. The intent of Clause (2) of NRP was for the policy not to apply to those recruitments which have been completed prior to the issuance of NRP. In the present case, as the recruitment process was still ongoing, NRP will apply. It is therefore submitted that the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petitions and no interference is warranted by this Court.
35.This Court has had the occasion to examine similar legal issue in multiple cases. The Constitution Bench in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan4, while dealing with an office memorandum of the Central Government in respect of promotion under the All India Services Act, 1951 and the Indian Police Service (Fixation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, held:
“7.We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr N.C. Chatterjee that in the absence of any statutory rules governing promotions to selection grade posts the Government cannot issue administrative instructions and such administrative instructions cannot impose any restrictions not found in the Rules already framed. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is true that there is no specific provision in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade officers to selection grade posts. But that does not mean that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed.”
50.In the present case, not only benchmarks are being set after the game has been played, rather the State has decided that a portion of the game itself, the step of interview, should not have been played at all. As discussed above, in pursuance of Rule 24(e) of the TSR Rules, the DGP had approved interview as one of the tests required to be passed. Thereafter, candidates participated in interviews and were ranked accordingly. It can be said that the stage of interview was over much prior to the issuance of the Cancellation Memorandum.51. The Constitution bench in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra) has also clarified that the procedure prescribed in the extant rules cannot be violated and administrative instructions can only be used to supplement and fill the gap in the Rules; they cannot be used to supplant the Rules completely, as has been done in the present case. These administrative instructions, in any case, cannot be diametrically opposite to what the Rules provide. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below as thus:—
“62.There can therefore be no doubt that where there are no rules or the rules are silent on the subject, administrative instructions may be issued to supplement and fill in the gaps in the rules. In that event administrative instructions would govern the field provided they are not ultra vires the provisions of the rules or the statute or the Constitution. But where the rules expressly or impliedly cover the field, the recruiting body would have to abide by the rules.”
52.In the present case, on the strength of a general policy decision of the State, an ongoing recruitment process was first put in abeyance and then cancelled, it has been derailed with the intention to implement NRP when the recruitment has already reached the stage of preparation of the merit list. The very application of NRP to the ongoing process is illegal on three counts - firstly, because it is an executive instruction and in the absence of an amendment in the TSR Act and TSR Rules, the recruitment procedure could not have been changed. Secondly, because the application of NRP to the ongoing recruitment process would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game has already begun, i.e. recruitment process has commenced. Thirdly, as per clause (2) of NRP, the recommendation to abolish interviews for Group-D posts would only apply prospectively and it would not mean to apply in the recruitment process wherein the interview has already taken place. In view of the conclusions drawn as above, Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the above terms.
ISSUE NO. 3 Legitimate expectation and indefeasible right
53.Another aspect of the matter is the question as to whether any absolute right of appointment has accrued in favour of the appellants by participating in the recruitment process after completion of the recruitment rallies and when a provisional merit list has been prepared, or if they have a legitimate expectation to be recruited having participated in the process. If so, whether cancellation of the recruitment process would impinge upon such legitimate expectation."
54.On the said issue, the State has placed heavy reliance on the judgment in Shankarsan Dash (Supra) to argue that mere participation in the selection process or even placement on the select list would not create an indefeasible right for appointment in favour of the appellants. On the other side, the appellants have placed reliance on Sivanandan C.T. (Supra) to argue that they have a legitimate expectation to be appointed after having
participated in the recruitment process.55. It is trite law, and no contest can be made in respect of the settled proposition that mere participation in the recruitment process or placement in a select list would not create an indefeasible right to be appointed, even if vacancies are available. The judgment in Shankarsan Dash (Supra) has been followed subsequently in a plethora of decisions of this Court. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereinafter:
“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 license 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.”
Further, it is true that mere inclusion in a merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. However, that principle does not authorize the respondents to cancel the entire process without disclosing a sustainable basis for such cancellation. The plea regarding want of Government permission also cannot sustain the impugned decision, as no specific statutory provision requiring such prior permission has been demonstrated before this Court.
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Pawan Kumar Tiwary and Partha Das (supra) on the issue and the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned resolution dated 24.08.2016 suffers from non-application of mind and absence of cogent reasons and, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned resolution dated 24.08.2016 (Annexure P/20), insofar as it cancels the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisements dated 27.06.2014 and 18.09.2014 for Class-III and Class-IV posts, is hereby quashed. The respondents shall reconsider the matter in accordance with law, taking into consideration the selection/merit list and appoint selectees as per merit list if there is no further legal impediments as the recruitment process is of year 2014 and the matter has been pending since then after remand in an appeal by the Division Bench of this court. In case of any legal impediments which lead to rejection of any of the selectees then the competent authority shall pass a well reasoned speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.