The State's decision to cancel recruitment must be bona fide and non-arbitrary; candidates do not have an absolute right to appointment despite being placed in the merit list.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vikas Nair with learned advocate Ms.Rajvi Patel, learned advocate Mr.Ekrama Qureshi, learned advocate Mr.Zubin Bharda with learned advocate Ms.Disha Pandya for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr.Rituraj Meena on behalf of the respondents.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Meena waives service of rule in all the petitions on behalf of the respondents.

3. With the consent of parties, the present petitions are taken up for final hearing.

3.1. At the outset, it would be relevant to mention that the present petitioners challenge the very self-same decision of the respondent Corporation whereby the respondents had cancelled recruitment for paramedical

posts and hence, all the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing together.

3.2. The facts of Special Civil Application No.3532/2022 are being referred to for the purpose of the present decision.

4. The respondent Corporation vide advertisement no.1/2019 had notified recruitment for non-executives on regular basis for the Western Sector – Gujarat State. While vacancies for a total of 35 posts had been advertised, the present petition is concerning the advertisement for paramedical posts namely Pharmacists Grade-IV, (Allopathy) Nurse Grade-IV and Junior Health Attendant, where a total of 21 posts altogether had been advertised.

4.1. The petitioners had applied for the selection process and whereas alongwith other aspirants, the petitioners were required to appear in the Computer Based Test (CBT) examination based upon the results of which the final merit list for qualified candidates was prepared. The petitioners whose names reflected in the final merit list were called for physical verification of documents in the month of January, 2020.

4.2. At this stage it requires mention that initially candidatures of some of the petitioners had been rejected on the ground of not possessing a domicile certificate. It appears that such rejection had not been restricted to the posts in question and whereas many of the candidates had approached this Court by filing writ petitions and whereas vide common judgment dated 27.02.2020, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had inter alia allowed the petition setting aside the action of the respondent Corporation in disqualifying the candidates. The Court had also directed that the petitioners in that group of petitions whose names figured in the final merit list were to be provided with all consequential benefits and whereas the exercise was directed to be completed within a period of twelve weeks. It appears that the respondent Corporation had sought for extension on a few occasions and whereas, the exercise was finally directed to be completed by 15.11.2020.

4.3. It appears that since no progress was taking place insofar as the present posts, applications had been made by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons and whereas it was intimated that the process was pending due to administrative reasons. It appears that since the respondents were not complying with the directions of the learned Coordinate Bench of completing the process, therefore, the petitioners ha