# Right to Appointment Not Indefeasible and Not Prejudiced by Bona Fide Reduction of Vacancies

The applicant, an SC category candidate, applied for the post of Goods Guard under Employment Notice No. 03/2008, which initially advertised 54 vacancies.

During the recruitment process, the respondents reduced the vacancies to 20, citing surplus staff and administrative requirements approved by the Railway Board on 20.10.2009.

A corrigendum was issued on 03.12.2009.

The applicant secured 42.2713% marks in the written exam, which was below the SC cut-off of 43.3330% for the reduced vacancies.

The applicant challenged the reduction of posts as an illegal change to the "rules of the game" after the selection had commenced.

1. Whether the reduction of notified vacancies midway through the recruitment process due to administrative exigencies was arbitrary or illegal.

2. Whether a candidate in a recruitment process acquires an indefeasible right to appointment based on the original number of notified vacancies.

The State and its instrumentalities may, for bona fide administrative reasons, choose not to fill all vacancies, provided the procedure is non-discriminatory.

A candidate in a select list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment as established in Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and State of Manipur v. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei.

Distinction between the right to be placed in a select list and the right to appointment (K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh), and the State's discretion in filling posts (State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha).

The Tribunal found that the Railway Administration reserved the right to increase or decrease vacancies under Para 1.10 of the Employment Notice.

The reduction of 34 posts was justified by the respondents as being due to the absorption of surplus staff (Cabinmen), which constituted a bona fide administrative requirement.

The court observed that the broader constitutional question of "changing the rules of the game" (raised in Tej Prakash Pathak) did not apply because the applicant failed to meet even the relaxed cut-off for the SC category and thus never entered the "zone of consideration".

No mala fides or bias were found in the decision-making process, and the administrative instructions supplemented the field where rules were silent.

The applicant had no indefeasible right to appointment, especially as he failed to secure the required cut-off marks.

The Original Application was rejected as being without merit, and all pending M.A.s were disposed of with no orders as to costs.