Selection creates no indefeasible right to appointment after a recruitment process is lawfully cancelled.

The applicant was selected against an SC vacancy for the post of GDS Mail Carrier, Mandi BO, after securing 81.5% marks.

An engagement letter was issued, he furnished the required security and was declared medically fit, but he was not permitted to join.

The Department later cancelled the recruitment process by order dated 05.10.2017, following a Circle-level review.

The applicant challenged the cancellation, alleging that it was made without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, and sought permission to join.

Whether the cancellation of the recruitment process, without a prior hearing to the applicant, was unlawful or arbitrary.

Whether the applicant’s selection and completion of the required formalities gave him an enforceable right to appointment or joining.

A candidate has no indefeasible right to public employment merely by being selected, but a candidate who has progressed through the selection process is entitled to fair and non-discriminatory treatment; a State employer must provide a rational justification for excluding such a candidate (Union of India v. Uzair Imran & Ors.).

Rule 4(3) of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 provides for superior-authority review of engagement records and an opportunity of hearing in the circumstances contemplated by that Rule; the Tribunal distinguished review affecting an existing engagement from cancellation of a recruitment process before formal engagement.

The Tribunal also considered Sonu Kumar, BPM & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and paragraphs 20–21 of the recruitment notification, which reserved the Department’s right to cancel the process, subject to the requirement that the power not be exercised arbitrarily.

The applicant had a legitimate expectation of fair treatment, given his selection, medical fitness and completion of formalities, but had never joined or been formally engaged; the cancellation therefore did not terminate an existing engagement.

The record showed that the recruitment was reviewed at Circle level, that Mandi BO was included in the review, and that the competent authority specifically directed cancellation before the impugned order was issued.

The Tribunal found a rational administrative basis for cancelling the process and no evidence of mala fides or personal discrimination.

It held that the hearing principle in Rule 4(3) and Sonu Kumar did not apply mechanically to these facts, and that the applicant’s selection and the continued vacancy did not create a right to appointment.

It dismissed the Original Application, rejected the prayers to quash the order dated 05.10.2017 and to permit the applicant to join, disposed of any pending MAs, and made no order as to costs.