Validity of a select list does not extend the joining period; non-joining permits appointment cancellation.

The petitioner was selected in the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination, 2019, for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police (General Duty).

An appointment/posting order dated 24 January 2024 posted him at Mandsaur and required him to join within 15 days and thereafter undergo prescribed training, subject to cancellation for failure to join within the stipulated period.

The petitioner was serving in the Education Department and obtained a No Objection Certificate dated 29 January 2024, but admittedly did not join the post within 15 days or obtain any formal extension from the competent authority.

His appointment was cancelled by order dated 6 June 2024.

He challenged the cancellation under Articles 226/227, contending that the select list remained valid for 12 months, that he was entitled to additional time to obtain an NOC, and that the cancellation without a show-cause notice violated natural justice.

He also alleged discriminatory treatment by comparison with respondent No. 5, who was subsequently permitted to join after obtaining an NOC.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to join within the 15-day period prescribed in the appointment order attracted cancellation of his appointment under Rule 13(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Police Executive (Gazetted) Services Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000, notwithstanding the continuing validity of the select list for 12 months.

Whether the petitioner’s NOC dated 29 January 2024, personal difficulties, or alleged request for extension created an enforceable right to join after expiry of the prescribed joining period.

Whether cancellation of the appointment without issuing a show-cause notice violated the principles of natural justice.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to parity with respondent No. 5 under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Rule 13(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Police Executive (Gazetted) Services Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000, which provides that an appointment shall be cancelled if the candidate does not join within the period specified in the appointment order.

It distinguished the validity of a selection list under the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 from the separate period prescribed for joining after an appointment order has been issued.

The Court recognised that administrative action having civil consequences ordinarily attracts principles of natural justice, as discussed in Sanjay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.A. No. 478 of 2021; however, it held that Sanjay Jain concerned termination of an existing service relationship and was distinguishable from non-joining pursuant to a conditional appointment.

It also held that Saurabh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 6527 of 2016, did not establish any unrestricted right to join during the entire validity period of a select list.

Article 14 does not permit a person to claim repetition of an alleged illegality or irregular benefit granted to another person.

The Court held that the petitioner’s selection-list argument was misplaced because selection-list validity and the joining period under an appointment order operate in distinct fields.

Once the appointment order dated 24 January 2024 required joining within 15 days, the petitioner was bound by that condition unless the competent authority formally extended it.

The NOC dated 29 January 2024 merely removed an impediment arising from his existing employment; it did not amount to joining, waive the 15-day requirement, or extend the joining period.

Since the petitioner admittedly neither joined within time nor produced an order granting extension, cancellation followed the express statutory and appointment-order consequences under Rule 13(3).

The absence of a show-cause notice did not invalidate the action because the cancellation recorded the objective and undisputed fact of non-joining, rather than terminating an existing tenure of service; the petitioner’s explanations could not themselves enlarge the statutory period.

The claim of discrimination also failed because respondent No. 5’s case involved materially different subsequent facts and, in any event, Article 14 could not be used to demand replication of an alleged irregular benefit.

The cancellation order dated 6 June 2024 was held consistent with Rule 13(3), not arbitrary, jurisdictionally defective, or violative of natural justice.

The writ petition was dismissed, any interim order was vacated, and there was no order as to costs.