No indefeasible right to appointment exists where a selection process is cancelled for administrative reasons.

The petitioner applied for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) under the Prime Minister’s Package for Kashmiri Migrants following Advertisement Notification No. 04/2017/15 dated 28.11.2017

Although the petitioner participated in the written examination, the J Services Selection Board (Board) failed to conclude the selection process, prompting the petitioner to file O.A. No. 61/989/2020

On 06.11.2020, the Tribunal directed the Board to complete the selection process by passing a reasoned order within two months

The petitioner subsequently filed the instant Contempt Petition alleging willful disobedience of said order

The Board contended that the written examination was cancelled ab-initio in January 2022 because the syllabus provided to the examining agency was erroneously tagged, resulting in out-of-syllabus questions

Consequently, the posts were returned to the indenting department pursuant to government instructions regarding post-reorganization legal framework changes

1. Whether the respondents’ failure to finalize the selection process and the subsequent return of posts to the indenting department constitutes willful disobedience of the Tribunal's directions dated 06.11.2020

2. Whether a candidate acquires a vested right to appointment or the completion of a selection process when the underlying examination is cancelled due to administrative/technical errors

The court applied the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Contempt of Court (CAT) Rules, 1992

It relied on the constitutional principle established in Shankarsan Dass v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, which holds that a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed merely by the appearance of their name in a merit list

This was reinforced by Mohd Rashid v. The Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and Ors (2020) 2 SCC 582, affirming that inclusion in a merit list does not grant a vested right to seek appointment

The Tribunal examined whether the Board's inability to "complete the selection process" as ordered was a result of contumacious conduct or legitimate administrative hurdles.

The Board demonstrated that the written examination was fundamentally flawed because the syllabus shared with the testing agency was "wrongfully tagged," leading to a mismatch between the paper and the prescribed curriculum

The Tribunal reasoned that since the examination itself was cancelled ab-initio and no merit or select list was ever generated, the Board could not proceed to the appointment stage

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that selection and appointment are distinct recruitment phases; without a finalized select list, the petitioner had no legal standing to demand appointment

The Board’s decision to return the posts to the indenting department, coupled with the general withdrawal of pre-2019 vacancies by the GAD, rendered the original direction to "complete the process" impossible to execute in its original form

The Tribunal answered that the petitioner had no indefeasible right to appointment in the absence of a finalized selection

The Contempt Petition was closed, and the contempt notices issued against the respondents were discharged