Selection confers no indefeasible right; recruitment cancellation for lack of financial sanction is a valid administrative exercise.

The petitioners applied for the posts of Staff Nurse, Radiographer, Medical Lab Technologist, and Ophthalmic Assistant following a recruitment advertisement dated 24.03.2022

The selection process advanced through several stages, including the publication of an eligibility list and document verification on 05.09.2022

the respondent authorities subsequently cancelled the entire recruitment process

Upon a court-directed representation, the respondents issued a rejection letter dated 20.11.2023, citing "unavoidable reasons" and a lack of requisite sanction from the Finance Department as grounds for the cancellation

The petitioners challenged this cancellation as arbitrary and a violation of their legitimate expectations

mere inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment upon a candidate

State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, which establishes that while the State cannot act on whims, it may cancel a select list for cogent and germane grounds

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dr. Vinay Kumar, affirming that a candidate in a direct recruitment process has no legal right to insist the process be carried to its logical end

Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited v. Chukkala Kranthi Kiran, reiterating that an employer has the right to take independent decisions to initiate fresh processes based on altered circumstances

The court found that the recruitment process was cancelled primarily because the Finance Department had not accorded the necessary financial sanction

since financial clearance is a prerequisite for the disbursement of salaries and benefits, its absence constitutes a valid administrative and financial constraint

The court determined that the State’s decision was a bona fide policy choice aimed at rectifying anomalies and ensuring a transparent process through the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam)

Since the advertisement itself was cancelled on justifiable grounds, the court concluded that the petitioners could no longer assert a legal right to recruitment based on a defunct process

The court held that the executive discretion exercised by the State did not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness

acknowledging that the petitioners became overaged due to three successive cancellations by the State, the court directed the respondent authorities to grant appropriate age relaxation to the petitioners in any fresh recruitment process for the subject posts

The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions