Mere Inclusion in Select List Confers No Indefeasible Right to Appointment Absent Formal Offer

The Petitioner, a retired Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO), applied for the post of Civilian Assistant Security Officer (CASO) under the Ministry of Defence (MoD) pursuant to a 2016 notification

Following an interview in May 2018, the Petitioner secured the highest marks among the selected candidates

However, the appointment process stalled for nearly a year due to administrative ambiguity regarding whether the Joint Secretary (Army), who chaired the Selection Committee, could also act as the appointing authority to approve the recommendations

On 27.02.2019, the JS (Army) decided to cancel the recruitment process ab initio due to the significant time elapsed and to ensure transparency through a fresh process

The Petitioner challenged this cancellation and the subsequent fresh notification before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his application

1. Whether a candidate placed at the top of a merit list acquires an indefeasible right to be appointed to the post.

2. Whether the administrative decision to cancel a recruitment process due to procedural delay and uncertainty was arbitrary or mala fide.

The Court primarily applied the principle established in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, which held that the inclusion of a candidate's name in a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment

It further relied on State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, affirming that the State is not bound to fill vacancies even after preparing a select list

Additionally, the Court cited Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dr. Vinay Kumar and State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, which establish that while recruitment must be fair and non-arbitrary, the government retains the prerogative to cancel a selection process for bona fide administrative reasons

The Court reasoned that no formal appointment order was ever issued, meaning the Petitioner never moved beyond the stage of a "selected candidate" to an "appointee"

The record indicated that the cancellation was not based on favoritism or corruption but was a response to an internal administrative deadlock regarding the identity of the "competent authority" that lasted from May 2018 to February 2019

The Court found that the JS (Army)’s decision to restart the process ab initio to ensure "wide publicity and equal opportunity" was a valid exercise of administrative discretion to rectify the stagnation of a three-year-old process

Furthermore, the Petitioner’s claim of "legitimate expectation" was rejected because such expectations cannot override statutory rules or the State's power to cancel recruitment for valid reasons in the public interest

(ii) the cancellation was bona fide and not arbitrary

The Court upheld the CAT's order dated 18.11.2019 and dismissed the writ petition, clarifying that while the Petitioner faced hardship, the court cannot grant relief contrary to settled law regarding the State's discretionary power in recruitment