Shortlisting or interview calls confer no indefeasible right to appointment or completion of an incomplete recruitment process.

The petitioner, qualified in Masonry/Building Construction, applied for the post of Work Supervisor in District Poonch following an advertisement dated 10.07.2013

A second advertisement was issued on 30.07.2013, and the petitioner was subsequently shortlisted for an interview

However, the interview was deferred via corrigendum and never conducted

On 31.07.2014, the respondents issued a fresh advertisement for the same post, effectively canceling the prior recruitment process

The respondents contended that the cancellation was necessary because only two candidates were eligible after the first notice, and a subsequent legal opinion suggested that entertaining applications after the original cut-off date was legally unsustainable

The petitioner challenged the fresh advertisement and sought a mandamus to compel the respondents to conduct interviews based on the 2013 notices

1. Whether a candidate who is shortlisted for an interview acquires a vested or indefeasible right to insist on the completion of the recruitment process.

2. Whether the respondents’ decision to cancel the initial recruitment process and issue a fresh advertisement was arbitrary, mala fide, or legally infirm.

The court applied the well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that a candidate who merely applies for a post or is shortlisted does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment

It further relied on the doctrine that recruitment is an administrative function, and courts will not compel the continuation of a selection process if it is found to be legally doubtful or irregular, provided it has not culminated in a final selection

Additionally, the court applied the rule that allegations of mala fides must be specifically pleaded with particulars and established with cogent evidence rather than mere suspicion

The Tribunal observed that the recruitment process never progressed to the interview stage; thus, no assessment of comparative merit occurred, and no select list was finalized

Consequently, the petitioner’s claim was based on an "incomplete process" that never matured into an enforceable legal right

Regarding the respondents' conduct, the Tribunal found their explanation plausible: the process was halted due to internal legal opinions highlighting the illegality of accepting applications after the original cut-off date

The Tribunal noted that the employer cannot be faulted for pausing a recruitment process clouded by legal infirmity

Furthermore, the petitioner failed to substantiate claims of favoritism with material evidence, rendering them "bald assertions"

Judicial review is limited to the decision-making process, and since the respondents revisited the matter due to valid legal doubts before any finality was reached, there was no patent illegality

The court answered that the respondents had valid, record-supported reasons to issue a fresh advertisement due to the legal complications of the initial process

The relief to quash the 2014 advertisement and direct interviews under the 2013 notices was denied as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any infringement of an enforceable legal right

No order as to costs was made