Facts
The respondents (Central Research Institute, Kasauli) issued Advertisement No. 1-4/2012-Admn on 26.12.2012 for 15 posts, including Animal Attendant, Khalasi, Labourer, Packer, and Carpenter
Source reference: p. 2The applicants applied for the first four categories and appeared for interviews in July 2013
Source reference: p. 3While the recruitment process for the post of Carpenter was completed and appointments were made, the results for the other posts were kept pending
Source reference: p. 3-4During this period, Group D posts were reclassified as Group C following the 6th CPC, and the DOPT issued a mandate on 29.12.2015 discontinuing interviews for junior-level posts
Source reference: p. 5, 8New Recruitment Rules (RRs) were notified on 27.04.2016, which prescribed enhanced technical qualifications not present in the original 2012 advertisement
Source reference: p. 7Consequently, the respondents issued an order on 21.09.2017 withdrawing the 2012 advertisement for the laboratory-related posts
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the withdrawal of the recruitment process after the completion of interviews was arbitrary and legally sustainable
Source reference: p. 22. Whether the applicants acquired a vested or indefeasible right to be appointed or to have the results declared
Source reference: p. 63. Whether the applicants could claim parity with the candidates appointed to the post of Carpenter under the same advertisement
Source reference: p. 7-8Law Applied
The Tribunal primarily applied the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991), which stipulates that the State is not under a legal obligation to fill all advertised vacancies and that even inclusion in a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment
Source reference: p. 6, 10It further relied on DOPT O.M. dated 21.10.2013 regarding the reclassification of posts and DOPT O.M. dated 29.12.2015, which abolished interviews for Group C posts to ensure transparency
Source reference: p. 6, 8The court also emphasized that appointments cannot be made in contravention of statutory Recruitment Rules currently in force
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
The Tribunal reasoned that since no select list was ever finalized or notified, the recruitment process remained incomplete, and no legal right to appointment accrued to the applicants
Source reference: p. 6, 10The court found that the respondents were justified in withholding results because the 2016 RRs introduced mandatory technical training certificates that the applicants did not satisfy
Source reference: p. 7Proceeding with the 2012 criteria after the notification of the 2016 Rules would have been void ab initio
Source reference: p. 7Furthermore, the change in government policy (discontinuation of interviews) rendered the earlier selection process administratively unsustainable
Source reference: p. 8-9Regarding the post of Carpenter, the court noted it was a separate cadre with distinct RRs notified in 2015 that remained consistent with the advertisement, thus justifying the differential treatment and negating any claim of discrimination under Article 14
Source reference: p. 7-8, 10Holding
The Tribunal answered the issues in the negative, holding that the applicants had no enforceable right to appointment as they merely participated in a selection process that was lawfully closed due to supervening statutory changes
The withdrawal of the advertisement was held to be a bona fide administrative decision consistent with constitutional principles
Source reference: p. 9The Original Application was dismissed as misconceived
Source reference: p. 11Original Court PDF
Mukul KhuranavsCentral Reseasrch Institute, Kasauli
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in