Back
Gauhati High Court
L.S. Jamir, J.
H. Lalropianga and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Mizoram University and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 97 of 2013
Decided On : 23-05-2014
Employment and Service Matter - 13 posts of Lower Division Clerks - Written examination - Appointment - Affidavit-in-opposition - Petitioners applied for post of LDCs and they were provisionally admitted to written examination - Written examination for post of Lower Division Clerk was held and by Notification dated respondents declared 163 candidates to have qualified for Typing Test and Computer Proficiency Test - Amongst 163 candidates, names of petitioners figured therein - Typing Test and Computer Proficiency Test was conducted by respondents and by Notification dated declared 46 candidates to have qualified for Personal Interview for vacant post in Mizoram University - All petitioners accordingly submitted their acceptance letter to offer of appointment made by respondents - However, by letter dated petitioners were informed that appointment to post of LDC in Mizoram University was being kept on hold till further orders - Petitioners thereafter came to learn from local media that appointments have been cancelled and had therefore submitted representations requesting respondents for information as to why post offered to them was being cancelled - In reply respondent No. 2 informed petitioners by letter dated that recruitment to post of LDC advertised has been cancelled by 35th Meeting of Mizoram University Executive Council –Held, Petitioner that two persons Dean, SES & RM were present in Executive Council meeting held on this court has seen records wherein it is seen that in 35th meeting of Executive council held there were 17 members including aforesaid two persons with Vice-Chancellor, Mizoram University in Chair, while taking decision to cancel recommendation for appointment of LDCs - Candidate selected for appointment to a civil post does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in select list of candidates cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily - Hence, contentions of learned counsel for respondents as to the sustainability of Judgment of CAT under appeal on ground of non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to respondents (candidate in the select list) is a misconceived one and is consequently rejected - Writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed
2. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the only reason given by the respondents for cancelling the recommendation for appointment of the petitioners to the post of LDC was that the 35th Executive Council vide EC : 35 : 5(8) was of the view that certain aberrations had occurred during the selection process of the LDC. The word "aberration" had been vaguely used and no appropriate reasons had been given while the impugned letters dated 15.7.2013 and 23.8.2013 were issued by the respondents. The reasons given by t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
