Writ Petitions Challenging Cancellation of Merit List Rendered Infructuous Upon Expiry of Stipulated Contractual Engagement Period

The petitioners participated in a recruitment process initiated by an advertisement dated July 2, 2021, for various posts under the National Health Mission (NHM). Selection was based on educational merit and experience.

After document scrutiny, a merit-based select list was prepared featuring the petitioners. However, on May 4, 2022, the Selection Committee cancelled the entire selection process on grounds that the NHM 2018 guidelines were not followed and the select list lacked ratification by the competent authority.

The petitioners challenged this cancellation, alleging it was arbitrary, mala fide, and influenced by local political pressure.

1. Whether the cancellation of the entire selection process by the respondent authorities was illegal and arbitrary.

2. Whether the court can direct the appointment of the petitioners based on a select list from 2021 when the contractual period of engagement has already lapsed.

The court applied the principle of judicial restraint regarding expired contractual appointments and administrative discretion in recruitment processes.

The court recognized the right of a selection committee to cancel a process if statutory or organizational guidelines (specifically the National Health Mission 2018 guidelines) are not adhered to.

The court also considered the temporal nature of contractual employment, where the relief of appointment becomes infructuous upon the expiration of the advertised term of engagement.

The court examined the petitioners' contention that the reasons for cancellation were known to the committee from the inception and were only invoked post-selection.

The court balanced this against the respondents' submission that the selection violated NHM 2018 guidelines and that the advertisement reserved the right to cancel the process.

Crucially, the court noted that the advertisement was issued in 2021 for a contract period of only one year. Since that one-year period had already expired by the time of the hearing, the court reasoned that no effective relief or direction for appointment could be granted, rendering the petitions practically moot.

The court declined to quash the order dated May 4, 2022, or direct appointments. However, the court granted the petitioners liberty to participate in future recruitment processes provided they meet the eligibility and suitability criteria.