VC Aspirant Who Aged Out After Earlier Ads Were Cancelled Has No Automatic Right To Join Fresh Selection: Patna HC

The petitioner applied for Vice-Chancellor posts at Veer Kunwar Singh University, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, and Magadh University under earlier advertisements. He was within the prescribed maximum age of 67 years on the relevant application deadlines.

The advertisements were subsequently cancelled, and a fresh advertisement dated 30 May 2026 set a later cut-off date, by which the petitioner had crossed the age limit. He challenged the cancellations as arbitrary and sought permission to participate in the fresh selection process, including acceptance of his offline application and age-related relief.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Under Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612, an advertisement inviting applications does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment or, by itself, a right to insist that recruitment continue in the same form; however, recruitment decisions remain subject to the requirement of non-arbitrariness.

Articles 14 and 16 were invoked in the petitioner’s challenge to the alleged arbitrariness and discrimination.

The Court also considered Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 13950–13951 of 2024, but observed that its applicability depended on the recruitment’s nature, governing provisions, circumstances of cancellation, and relief granted in that case.

Earlier eligibility alone does not automatically establish entitlement to age relaxation.

The Court held that the petitioner’s eligibility on the deadlines under the earlier advertisements was relevant but did not, on its own, create an enforceable right to participate in the later recruitment or to receive age relaxation.

The legality of the fresh process depended on whether the cancellations and subsequent advertisement involved illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, or breach of an applicable statutory provision.

Although cancellation remained subject to judicial scrutiny, the petitioner failed to establish that the impugned cancellations were actuated by malice or arbitrariness.

The Court therefore found no established legal entitlement to the relief sought and declined to direct participation in the fresh process.

Finding no sufficient basis to grant the requested relief, it dismissed the writ petition.