CHANDRA BHUSHAN PRASAD vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010165902026
2026:UHC:9439-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 785 OF 2026
TH
15 OCTOBER, 2026
Chandra Bhushan Prasad …..Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India & others ….Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Singh, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Union of India : Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned
Standing Counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht,
learned Deputy Advocate
General.
Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh,
learned counsel.
The Court made the following:
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
1
UKHC010165902026
2026:UHC:9439-DB
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.
2. 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withdrawn by the State Government by communication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.
3. 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.
4. 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
2
UKHC010165902026
2026:UHC:9439-DB
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.
5. 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,
3
UKHC010165902026
2026:UHC:9439-DB
and no discrimination can be permitted. ”
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
4
UKHC010165902026
2026:UHC:9439-DB
9. Since the vacancies have been re-advertised,
therefore, petitioner shall be at liberty to apply in
response to the fresh advertisement.
10. 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.
11. The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid
terms.
12. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
’’
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
th
Dated: 15 October, 2026
NISHANT
NISHANT KUMAR
Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A055CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2026.10.16 18:42:06 +05'30'
5