Cancellation of a Completed Recruitment Process Without Bonafide Legal Justification or Vitiating Factors is Arbitrary and Unsustainable

The Lakshadweep Administration issued an employment notification on 29.01.2018 for seven vacancies of Information Assistant-cum-Photographer.

The recruitment process, involving a written test and a proficiency test conducted by CUSAT, Kochi, was substantially completed by 21.09.2020 when the Recruitment Committee approved the final merit list.

The Lakshadweep Staff Selection Board (LSSB) was subsequently constituted on 23.01.2021.

Despite legal opinions from the Administration’s Legal Cell stating that the prior recruitment process was valid, the Board intervened, citing inconsistencies in the scheme of examination.

This led to the eventual cancellation of the recruitment process via an order dated 04.12.2025 (Annexure A-19).

The applicants, who were top-ranked in the merit list, challenged this cancellation as arbitrary and illegal.

1. Whether the applicants acquired an indefeasible right to appointment by virtue of being included in a finalized merit list that had not been officially published.

2. Whether the Lakshadweep Administration acted bona fide and within its legal authority to cancel the recruitment process after its completion but before external publication.

3. Whether the subsequent constitution of the LSSB provided a valid legal basis for intervening in a recruitment process initiated and concluded prior to its existence.

The court applied the established principle that successful candidates in a selection process do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed, as held in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India.

It further relied on State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, stating that a notification is merely an invitation to apply and does not compel the authority to appoint.

Doctrine from Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana and State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, which mandates that any decision to abandon a recruitment process mid-way must be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons and must not be arbitrary or whimsical.

The Tribunal noted that the recruitment process was conducted by a reputed independent body (CUSAT) and that no allegations of fraud or malpractice existed regarding the selection itself.

It found that the LSSB was constituted after all candidate-participation stages were finished, rendering its intervention questionable.

The court observed that the Administration's justifications for cancellation appeared to be post-facto rationalizations rather than original causes for the decision.

While acknowledging that the lack of formal Government approval of the select list prevented the creation of a "vested right" for the applicants, the Tribunal concluded that the total cancellation of the process lacked legal justification and was arbitrary, especially since vacancies continued to exist and previous legal challenges to the notification had already been dismissed by the High Court.

The Tribunal set aside the cancellation order (Annexure A-19) and directed the respondents to logically conclude the selection process and issue appropriate orders within three months; the O.As were disposed of with no order as to costs.