Entire recruitment process cannot be cancelled on vague complaints without cogent reasons and relevant material.

The respondent-University initiated recruitment for Class-III and Class-IV posts through advertisements dated 27 June 2014 and 18 September 2014, pursuant to State Government directions concerning the filling of reserved, unreserved and backlog vacancies.

The petitioners participated in the process and were declared successful in the written examination on 18 July 2015.

Following complaints alleging irregularities, favouritism and corruption, the recruitment process was initially cancelled by the Executive Council on 20 August 2015 and a scrutiny committee was subsequently constituted to examine the complaints.

Although the committee submitted its report on 26 July 2016, the Executive Council again cancelled the entire recruitment process by resolution dated 24 August 2016.

The petitioners challenged the cancellation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the resolution disclosed no cogent reasons and that the complaints did not establish any systemic illegality.

The University defended the decision on the basis of pending complaints and communications from the Economic Offences Wing and Lokayukta, asserting that participation in or success in the selection process did not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.

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 Executive Council’s resolution dated 24 August 2016 was arbitrary, non-speaking and unsupported by relevant material, warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227.

3. Whether the petitioners’ inclusion in the written-examination result or merit list created an indefeasible right to appointment, or at least a legitimate expectation requiring fair and reasoned consideration.

The Court applied the constitutional requirement that administrative and public-authority decisions must be fair, reasonable, non-arbitrary and supported by relevant reasons.

It relied on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, as reiterated in Partha Das v. State of Tripura, for the rule that mere participation in a recruitment process or inclusion in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, but the State cannot act arbitrarily and must take bona fide decisions for appropriate reasons.

It further relied on Pawan Kumar Tiwary v. Jharkhand Electricity Board, which requires authorities to distinguish between legally sustainable and unsustainable appointments, examine individual cases where necessary, and avoid wholesale cancellation without adequate material and observance of natural justice.

Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB and State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha were recognized as supporting cancellation where serious or systemic irregularities undermine public confidence, but were distinguished on facts.

The Court also applied the principle that an executive instruction cannot override or alter applicable recruitment rules after the process has commenced, as discussed in Partha Das.

The asserted requirement of prior Government permission could not sustain the cancellation because no specific statutory provision imposing such a requirement was shown.

The Court held that the mere receipt of complaints or requests for information from the EOW and Lokayukta did not establish that the recruitment process was tainted by large-scale malpractice, manipulation of answer sheets, selection of ineligible candidates or systemic irregularity.

Although the Executive Council had authority in principle to cancel the process, that power had to be exercised on the basis of relevant material and through a reasoned decision.

The scrutiny committee’s report did not record any finding of irregularity; it principally contained details concerning production of answer sheets and corresponding results.

The impugned resolution did not identify the irregularities allegedly found, explain their impact, or justify why cancellation of the entire process, rather than an appropriate corrective or individualised action, was necessary.

Consequently, the decision suffered from non-application of mind and absence of cogent reasons.

The Court accepted that the petitioners had no automatic right to appointment, but held that this principle did not give the University a licence to cancel the recruitment process arbitrarily.

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

If any selectee was to be denied appointment on account of a legal impediment, the competent authority was directed to pass a reasoned speaking order within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.