Appointment orders cannot be withheld post-selection without just cause, such as fraud or disqualification.

The 2nd respondent issued an employment notification on January 10, 2019, inviting applications from qualified Scheduled Tribe candidates for three vacancies for the post of Offset Machineman.

The applicants applied, were successful in the selection process, and were ranked No. 1 and No. 2 respectively.

An offer of appointment (Annexure A3) was issued to them on April 6, 2023, which they accepted.

The Lakshadweep Staff Selection Board, chaired by the Advisor, had recommended the applicants for the post.

Despite the offer and acceptance, appointment orders were not issued.

RTI responses revealed that 10 posts of Offset Machineman existed, with 5 vacancies available (3 by promotion, 2 by direct recruitment), and that there was no "constraint decision" not to fill the vacant posts by direct recruitment.

The respondents contended that the Department was undergoing a "rationalization of work place".

However, the details of this process were not provided, and subsequent communications did not support this claim.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to appointment as Offset Machineman based on the selection process, recommendation, and offer of appointment.

2. Whether the respondents' contention of "rationalization of work place" constitutes a valid reason to withhold the appointment of the selected candidates.

The Tribunal implicitly applied the principle that a selection process should be brought to its logical conclusion, and appointments should be made unless the selection is vitiated by fraud, disqualification, or other valid circumstances.

The court also considered the directive from the Prime Minister through the 3rd respondent for Union Territories to adopt a recruitment drive to fill all vacancies.

The Tribunal found that the essential facts, including the notification, the selection of the applicants, and the offer of appointment, were undisputed.

The only reason provided by the respondents for not issuing appointment orders was the vague statement about "rationalization of work place".

The court noted that no details of this rationalization process were provided, and there was "absolutely nothing on record to indicate that there was any valid reason for not bringing the selection process to its logical conclusion".

The court highlighted a directive from the 3rd respondent to fill all vacancies and an RTI response confirming no constraint existed to fill direct recruitment posts.

Furthermore, an office order regarding amalgamation of Press Units had already been implemented in 2020, and a communication produced by the respondents in 2026 did not indicate any ongoing rationalization process that would justify withholding appointments.

The Tribunal concluded that the defense of rationalization was a "bogey" and not supported by evidence.

The Original Application was allowed.

The respondents were directed to issue appointment orders to the applicants as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.