Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
Dhiraj Mansukhbhai Pardhi, S/o. Mansukhbhai Pardhi – Petitioner
Versus
Bank of Baroda & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 4397 of 2025 With R/Special Civil Application No. 4402 of 2025
Decided On : 10-02-2026
For the Petitioner: Ms. Preeti R. Dixit.
For the Respondents: Mr. Darshan M. Parikh.
Inclusion in a select list does not create a vested right to appointment; employers retain discretion to cancel recruitment processes based on valid reasons.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Right to Employment - Writ of Mandamus - Employment Law - Candidates' inclusion in the select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment - The recruitment process was cancelled for valid reasons. (Para 7)
(B) Delay and Laches - Petitioners approached the Court after a significant delay without a satisfactory explanation, justifying dismissal of the petitions. (Paras 5.4 and 7)
(C) Discretion of Employer - Employers possess discretion in appointing candidates, which must be exercised reasonably and cannot be labeled illegal unless proven otherwise. (Para 7.1)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners participated in the selection process for the post of Sweeper after a 2019 advertisement, cleared the requirements, and received appointment letters, but were denied joining on grounds of a subsequent cancellation of the recruitment process by the Bank.
Findings of Court:
The Bank’s cancellation of the recruitment process was lawful, and the petitioners had no accrued rights to appointment as the process was deemed terminated.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioners had a legal right to appointment post-selection and whether the cancellation of the recruitment process was legitimate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and the discretion of the employer in recruitment processes must be respected unless shown to be arbitrary or mala fide.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim eligibility based on past employment. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners argue for rights to appointment. (Para 4) |
| 3. bank contends recruitment was cancelled. (Para 5) |
| 4. court rules cancellation of recruitment justified; petitions dismissed. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Preeti Dixit for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Darshan Parikh for the respondent Bank.
2. It was stated by learned advocate Ms. Dixit that both the petitions are filed by two different petitioners; however, the facts involved in both the petitions are identical and the prayers made therein are also identical. Therefore, Special Civil Application No. 4402 of 2025 was treated as the lead matter. Accordingly, the facts and prayers are being referred to from the said petition.
2.2. By way of Special Civil Application No. 4402 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the nature of writ, declaring the action on the part of respondent authorities not offering him employment after completion of due process as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to settled legal position.
(B) Be pleased to direct respondent authorities to forthwith issue an appointment order to the Post of Sweeper w.e.f 15-04-2019 alongwith arrears and interest @ 12% p.a. with all consequential benefit.
(C). Be pleased to allow this petition with costs and be pleased to quantify the cost in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
(D) Be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of this case.
3. The facts, as stated by learned advocate Ms. Dixit for the petitioners, are as under;
3.1 According to the petitioners, they had worked for more than 90 days between the years 1988 and 2013. It is their case that the erstwhile Vijaya Bank, at the relevant point of time in the year 2013–14, published an advertisement for appointment to the post of part-time Sweeper. As per the said advertisement, only those persons who had rendered service for more than 90 days between 1988 and 2013 were declared eligible to participate in the recruitment process. The petitioners applied for the said post; however, they were not successful in the selection process at the relevant point of time.
3.2. The matter ended there for the time being. Thereafter, in the year 2019, a fresh recruitment process was initiated and an advertisement came to be issued. The petitioners again applied for the said post and, after completion of the due selection process, their names were included in the select list. An appointment letter dated 28.03.2019 was also issued in favour of the petitioners. However, the petitioners were not permitted to join service. After a period of nearly six years, the present petitions have been preferred in the year 2025, challenging the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not appointing the petitioners.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Preeti Dixit for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners had participated in the entire selection process and were duly selected, the respondent authorities ought not to have cancelled the recruitment process. It was contended that the petitioners could not have been denied appointment without any justifiable reason. She further submitted that, upon completion of the due process of selection and issuance of appointment letters, a right had created in favour of the petitioners to be appointed. Therefore, the action of the respondents in denying appointment is contrary to the provisions of law and therefore, the same may not be approved by this Court. She, accordingly, urged that this Court may direct the respondent Bank to appoint the petitioners, who had successfully cleared the recruitment process.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Darshan Parikh appearing for the responde
