Public Authority May Withdraw Defective Recruitment Process Where Advertisement Lacks Essential Particulars Like Vacancies and Selection Criteria.

The applicants applied for Class-IV posts in the Animal Husbandry Department pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. E-2021/9267-95 dated 14.09.2009

Despite the lapse of a decade, the selection process was never finalized

Earlier, the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 469/2017 directed the respondents to take a decision on the recruitment

In 2019, the respondents issued Order Nos. DAHJ/Lit-648/10351-10370 and DAHJ/Lit-600/10295-10326, canceling the entire 2009 recruitment process

The respondents justified the cancellation on the grounds that the 2009 advertisement was fundamentally defective as it failed to specify the number of vacancies, selection criteria, or reservation roster points

The applicants challenged these cancellation orders, seeking a direction to finalize the selection

1. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily or illegally by withdrawing/canceling the recruitment process initiated in 2009 after a period of ten years

2. Whether the applicants acquired a vested or indefeasible right to appointment by virtue of participating in the selection process

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The Tribunal relied on the constitutional principles of Articles 14 and 16, emphasizing that transparency, certainty of vacancies, and reservation rosters are foundational to valid public recruitment

The Tribunal cited the precedent of Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana & Ors., noting that while the State may abandon a selection process, it must do so for valid, non-arbitrary reasons

Further, relying on Dr. Syed Nisar Ahmad v. State of J&K and State of Orissa v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia, the Tribunal affirmed the principle that inclusion in a selection process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment

The Tribunal reasoned that the 2009 advertisement notice was "fundamentally defective" because it lacked essential particulars such as the number of vacancies and selection procedure, which are required to satisfy the mandate of Articles 14 and 16

The Tribunal rejected the applicants' argument that subsequent government orders from 2013-2015 cured these defects, holding that such modifications could not retrospectively validate a defective notice after the application deadline had passed

The court found that the respondents did not act mechanically but arrived at the decision after seeking a formal legal opinion from the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs

It concluded that the delay, while significant, did not override the necessity of a legally sound recruitment process, and the court cannot issue a mandamus to perpetuate an illegality or force the completion of a defective process

The direct answer to the issues is that the State is empowered to withdraw a selection process for valid reasons, and the absence of vacancies and criteria in the advertisement constitutes such valid reasons

The Original Application was dismissed, and the impugned orders dated 13.09.2019 and 13.11.2019 were upheld. No order as to costs was made