Facts
The applicants (15 individuals) participated in a recruitment process initiated by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) for Group ‘A’ posts, including Assistant Secretary (Academics, Skill Education, and Training).
Source reference: p. 4After completing Tier-I and Tier-II (descriptive) examinations, the respondents issued a public notice on 08.05.2025 cancelling the entire recruitment process without providing reasons in the notice.
Source reference: p. 4-5The applicants challenged this cancellation, seeking a direction to the CBSE to prepare a merit list and complete the appointments in accordance with the original advertisement.
Source reference: p. 4The respondents contended that the cancellation was based on a Result Verification Committee report dated 06.05.2025, which identified procedural flaws, including the absence of normalization protocols across different subjects and difficulties in implementing reservation rosters for combined merits.
Source reference: p. 6, 10Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the recruitment process via the notice dated 08.05.2025 was arbitrary, unreasonable, or legally unsustainable.
Source reference: p. 82. Whether the applicants acquired an indefeasible right to appointment by virtue of participating in the selection process.
Source reference: p. 9Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle established in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991), which held that even a candidate on a select list does not have an indefeasible right to appointment.
Source reference: p. 9It further relied on State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha (2025), affirming the state's discretion to cancel a recruitment process for valid, bona fide administrative reasons.
Source reference: p. 7, 9While the power to abandon a selection process exists, it must not be exercised arbitrarily or without justification, as noted in Shaik Mahaboob John v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (2024).
Source reference: p. 5, 9The terms of the advertisement specifically reserved the Board's right to modify or cancel the process for administrative reasons.
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Tribunal reasoned that while the cancellation notice itself was "non-speaking" (silent on reasons), the administrative record contained the Report of the Result Verification Committee dated 06.05.2025, providing a valid basis for the decision.
Source reference: p. 10-11The Committee found that since the Tier-II exams involved different subjects with varying levels of difficulty, the lack of a pre-disclosed "normalization" formula made it legally risky to draw a combined merit list or satisfy category-wise reservation requirements.
Source reference: p. 10The Tribunal held that where a decision is supported by contemporaneous records and bona fide considerations, the absence of detailed reasoning in the public notice does not vitiate the order unless mala fides are proven.
Source reference: p. 11Since the applicants only participated in the process and no final select list was prepared, they had no vested right to the posts.
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The Tribunal held that the respondents acted within their rights to cancel the recruitment process due to inherent procedural and structural deficiencies that would have rendered any final select list legally vulnerable.
The cancellation was found to be neither arbitrary nor mechanical but supported by cogent administrative reasons.
Source reference: p. 12The Original Application (O.A.) was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p. 12Original Court PDF
Anukriti KabravsDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in