Withdrawing a combined appointment recommendation due to other candidates’ conflicts of interest is not arbitrary.

In brief

The question

Whether the State Government’s withdrawal of the petitioner’s recommendation was arbitrary when the petitioner himself had no conflict of interest.

The court held

The Court declined to interfere and disposed of the writ petition.

It also directed

It permitted the petitioner to apply under the advertisement dated 11 September 2026 and, because the application deadline had passed while the petition was pending, extended the time for him to submit his application by seven days.

Any pending application was also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner applied for the post of Chairperson of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) pursuant to an advertisement dated 29 May 2025.

¶ 1

The State Government recommended him to the Union Ministry for appointment on 24 February 2026.

¶ 1

On 17 August 2026, the State withdrew its recommendation, stating that certain recommended candidates had conflicts of interest.

¶ 1

The State conceded that the petitioner himself had no such conflict, but explained that the recommendations for the SEIAA and State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) positions had been made together and were withdrawn because some recommended candidates were conflicted.

¶ 1

The vacancies were re-advertised on 11 September 2026.

¶ 1

The petitioner challenged the withdrawal.

¶ 1–4

02Issues

i.Whether the State Government’s withdrawal of the petitioner’s recommendation was arbitrary when the petitioner himself had no conflict of interest.

¶ 3–7

ii.Whether the petitioner had an enforceable right to appointment, or a basis for judicial interference, after his recommendation was withdrawn and the vacancies re-advertised.

¶ 5–8

03Law Applied

Relying on Shankar San Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, the Court reiterated that selection does not ordinarily give a candidate an indefeasible right to appointment, and the State is generally not legally bound to fill notified vacancies.

¶ 5

However, a decision not to fill vacancies must be made bona fide for appropriate reasons and not arbitrarily; if vacancies are filled, comparative merit must be respected and discrimination is impermissible.

¶ 5

The Court identified no statutory provision or recruitment rule requiring the petitioner’s appointment.

¶ 5–7

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s name had been recommended without a selection process, so the recommendation did not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.

¶ 4, 6–8

Although the State accepted that the petitioner had no conflict of interest, it stated that other candidates recommended for the SEIAA and SEAC positions did have conflicts, and that the posts had been advertised and recommendations made together.

¶ 4, 6–8

The Court considered the resulting withdrawal of the entire recommendation non-arbitrary and found no basis for judicial review.

¶ 4, 6–8

It also noted that the vacancies had been re-advertised, allowing the petitioner to apply afresh.

¶ 4, 6–8