A recruitment process cannot be cancelled wholesale on vague complaints without cogent, disclosed reasons.

The petitioners participated in the recruitment process initiated by the respondent-University in 2014 for Class-III and Class-IV posts pursuant to advertisements dated 27 June 2014 and 18 September 2014. A written examination was conducted, and the petitioners were declared successful.

The recruitment process was thereafter delayed and subsequently subjected to complaints alleging irregularities, favouritism and corruption. A scrutiny committee was constituted, but its report did not record any specific finding of malpractice or systemic irregularity. The Executive Council nevertheless resolved on 24 August 2016 to cancel the entire recruitment process.

The petitioners challenged the cancellation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the decision was arbitrary, unreasoned and contrary to their legitimate expectation arising from the published merit list.

The respondents justified the cancellation on the basis of complaints, communications from the Economic Offences Wing and Lokayukta, alleged bias in favour of relatives of University employees, and want of Government permission.

1. Whether the University was justified in cancelling the entire Class-III and Class-IV recruitment process on the basis of complaints alleging irregularities, favouritism and corruption.

2. Whether the cancellation resolution dated 24 August 2016 was invalid for want of cogent, discernible reasons and non-application of mind.

3. Whether successful candidates included in the merit list acquired an indefeasible right to appointment, or at least a legitimate expectation that required consideration by the University.

The Court exercised judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against arbitrary administrative action.

It applied the principle that mere participation in a recruitment process or inclusion in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment; however, the State or recruiting authority cannot act arbitrarily and any decision not to appoint or to cancel a process must be bona fide, based on relevant material and supported by appropriate reasons, as recognised in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha.

Relying on Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, the Court recognised that public recruitment must maintain fairness, credibility and public confidence, but distinguished cases involving established serious or systemic irregularities.

The Court further relied on Partha Das v. State of Tripura and Pawan Kumar Tiwary v. Jharkhand Electricity Board for the propositions that recruitment cannot be cancelled on vague or unsubstantiated allegations, that legally sustainable cases must be separated from unsustainable ones, and that drastic cancellation requires relevant material, individualized consideration where appropriate, and compliance with natural justice.

The Court held that the respondents had shown only the existence of complaints and requests for information by investigative agencies; these circumstances did not, by themselves, establish large-scale malpractice, manipulation of answer sheets, selection of ineligible candidates or any systemic defect in the recruitment process.

Although the Executive Council was competent in principle to cancel the selection, its resolution did not identify the irregularities allegedly found by the scrutiny committee or explain why they required cancellation of the entire process.

The committee report placed on record merely dealt with production of answer sheets and corresponding results and contained no finding of irregularity.

The Court also rejected the contention that want of prior Government permission justified cancellation because no specific statutory provision requiring such permission had been demonstrated.

While the petitioners had no absolute right to appointment merely because they were successful, that principle did not authorise the University to take an arbitrary, unexplained decision defeating the merit list.

Accordingly, the cancellation resolution suffered from non-application of mind and absence of cogent reasons.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law, take into account the selection/merit list, and appoint the selectees according to merit if no legal impediment existed.

If any selectee could not be appointed because of a legal impediment, the competent authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The connected petitions were allowed to the same extent, with no order as to costs.