Selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment where bona fide administrative reasons justify non-filling of posts.

The Government of Puducherry issued a notification dated 9 June 2014 inviting applications for 11 posts of Lecturers (Physical Education).

The applicants, possessing the requisite postgraduate qualifications, participated in the recruitment process.

A Recruitment Committee allegedly selected them on 9 July 2015, and their certificates and records were verified on 13 July 2015.

However, the Select List was never formally published and appointment orders were not issued.

Litigation concerning the recruitment process culminated in the Madras High Court permitting the respondents to publish the Select and Wait Lists, while granting liberty to aggrieved candidates to challenge them thereafter.

Upon the applicants’ representations, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pass a speaking order.

By order dated 4 January 2019, the respondents rejected the applicants’ claim, stating that no Select List had been published and that, owing to financial constraints, the Government had adopted a policy of contractual engagement on consolidated pay for teaching posts.

The applicants challenged that order and sought appointment on a regular basis.

Whether the applicants, having allegedly been selected by the Recruitment Committee and having undergone certificate verification, acquired an enforceable right to publication of the Select List or appointment despite the Select List not having been formally published.

Whether the respondents’ decision to refrain from making regular appointments and to consider contractual engagement on consolidated pay, based on financial and administrative considerations, was arbitrary, unreasonable, or otherwise liable to judicial interference.

Whether the applicants could compel the Government to fill the advertised vacancies through regular appointment merely because a recruitment process had been undertaken and the applicants were allegedly selected.

The Tribunal applied the principle that mere inclusion in, or selection for, a select list does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment, particularly where the applicable rules do not guarantee appointment and the Government has bona fide reasons for not filling the vacancies.

It relied on State of Andhra Pradesh v. D. Dastagiri, (2003) 5 SCC 373, as applied by the Madras High Court, for the proposition that the selection process is not complete in the absence of publication of the Select List and that even inclusion in a select list does not create a vested right to appointment.

It further relied on Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, (1993) 1 SCC 154; State of Manipur v. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei, (2019) 3 SCC 331; and Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, (2020) 2 SCC 582, affirming that selection does not automatically create an enforceable right to appointment.

The Tribunal also relied on State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, 2025 INSC 334, for the principle that administrative decisions concerning cancellation or non-continuation of a recruitment process must be assessed on their own facts and may be upheld unless shown to be arbitrary, irrational, disproportionate, or mala fide.

The Tribunal treated the absence of a formally published Select List as significant and held that the applicants’ alleged selection and certificate verification did not, by themselves, create an enforceable right to appointment.

Although the applicants argued that the recruitment process had effectively concluded and that the subsequent contractual policy was arbitrary and retrospectively prejudicial, the Tribunal found no material demonstrating mala fides, bias, abuse of power, or irrationality in the respondents’ decision-making process.

The respondents’ reliance on financial constraints and administrative considerations, together with the proposed policy of contractual engagement for teaching posts, was accepted as falling within the Government’s policy domain.

The Tribunal accordingly held that the Government could not be compelled to make regular appointments merely because vacancies had been advertised or candidates had allegedly been selected.

It held that the applicants had no vested or enforceable right to publication of the Select List or to regular appointment, particularly when the Select List had not been published and the Government had relied on bona fide administrative and financial considerations.

Finding no arbitrariness or legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 4 January 2019, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application and made no order as to costs.