Back
Arbitrary Cancellation of Selection Process Without Justifiable Reason Is Impermissible:
The has delivered a landmark ruling affirming that cannot whimsically scrap a completed . In a judgment involving the selection of Reporters for the , the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra held that public employment must be governed by fairness, ensuring that legitimate candidates are not denied their rights due to unexplained administrative reversals.
Background of the Dispute The litigation traces back to a , advertisement inviting applications for seven Reporter positions. Petitioners Sourava Rout and Biswajyoti Behera successfully cleared the rigorous testing stages, including shorthand and , and secured top spots in the published in . Despite their selection, the appointment process stalled, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court in a previous round of litigation.
In , the High Court had directed the Assembly to conclude the selection process. However, pending an appeal by the Assembly, the authorities issued an order in cancelling the entire selection process, citing the "absence of original records" for verification. The petitioners returned to court, arguing that the cancellation was a bad-faith effort to avoid compliance with judicial orders.
The Arguments: Sanctity vs. Discretion The petitioners contended that their selection had become a settled matter, and the sudden cancellation was not only arbitrary but violated the principle of , especially given the findings of an earlier that confirmed the selection process was free of .
The Opposite Parties, representing the , argued that the and the Hon'ble Speaker held the final authority to approve appointments. They claimed the process was tainted by "serious irregularities" and the absence of original records, justifying a fresh advertisement to ensure fairness under .
Legal Analysis: The Burden of Fairness Justice Mishra’s analysis emphasized that while a candidate on a does not have an "" to appointment, the State is under a constitutional duty to act fairly. The Court distinguished between —which justifies discarding an entire process—and mere administrative delays.
Drawing on precedents such as and , the Court underscored that the State cannot abandon a recruitment drive without providing "plausible" and "reasonable" justifications. The Court found that the Assembly’s reliance on the absence of records was unconvincing, particularly because the records had been previously scrutinized by the Court and found to be untainted.
Key Observations The judgment offers strong judicial guidance on the limits of :
-
"Just because discretion has been vested with the Authority, it does not mean such discretion can be exercised arbitrarily."
-
"The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State's action... the burden is on the State to justify its decision."
-
"In the absence of any clarity coupled with the fact that no enquiry having been conducted on such allegation... this Court is constrained to believe that such belated discussion on the is an afterthought to nullify the ."
The Final Verdict: Restoration of Rights The High Court set aside the cancellation notice dated , terming it legally unsustainable. The Court directed the Secretariat to fulfill all remaining formalities under the and issue appointment letters to the petitioners within four weeks.
This ruling serves as a vital precedent, emphasizing that public bodies cannot use "transparency" as a smokescreen to cloak arbitrary decisions that undermine the efforts of successful candidates. By reinforcing the standard for cancellation, the Court has ensured that the in public service remains robust and accountable.
