Point of Law : It is open for the authority concerned not to fill up vacancies but such decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Kato, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:

“In the premises aforesaid your Petitioner humbly prays that your Lordship may be please to admit this petition, call for records of the case and issue rule on the respondents to show cause as to why:

1. A writ of certiorari should not be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned notice no. NEIFM/211/Advt./2016/P-III/867 dated Pasighat the 3rd August, 2022 with regard to the Petitioner herein as being arbitrary.

2. A writ of certiorari should not be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned advertisement no. 07/2022 dated 07/12/2022 with regard to petitioner already being selected.

3. A writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued to issue a suitable direction commanding the respondents to comply with the exam result notification No. 2-158/2019/NEIAH/ADMN/NEIFM/REQ/dated 24/03/2020 and issue appointment letters to the selectees.”

3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner is that an advertisement dated 08.03.2018 for filling up of two (2) posts of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) was floated by the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner accordingly responded to the advertisement. The petitioner was issued a calling letter-cum-Admit Card by the respondent No. 3 who was going to conduct the written test. The written test was scheduled for 19.02.2020 from 11 AM to 1 PM. According to the petitioner, she appeared for the written test and performed well. While she was waiting for the results to be declared, the same was not done for a long time and accordingly, she submitted a representation to the respondent No. 4 on 05.04.2022 asking the respondent No. 4 to look into the matter and to declare the results of the test that was conducted. However, instead of declaring the results, the respondent No. 3 on 03.08.2022 (Annexure-IV) issued the recruitment cancellation notice wherein, at Sl. No. 3 of the cancellation notice, apart from the other selection process, the recruitment process for the two post of UDC was cancelled due to administrative reasons. The petitioner being aggrieved with the cancellation submitted a representation to the respondent No. 4 on 12.08.2022 asking for the reason in detail as to why the selection process was cancelled. The petitioner also took the help of the local MLA. Despite the representation submitted, the respondent authorities concerned did not provide the details for cancelling the recruitment process except for stating that it was due to administrative reasons.

4. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 had issued a result notification dated 24.03.2020 to the respondent No. 4 wherein, the list of selected and wait listed candidates of various Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts were notified on the basis of the written examination/skill test held on 19th-21st February, 2020. The petitioner contends that her name has been clearly notified as a selected candidate for the post of UDC based on the advertisement dated 08.03.2018. However, as the result was not declared and instead, the recruitment cancellation notice dated 03.08.2022 having been issued, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the advertisement dated 08.03.2018, the petitioner appeared for the written test as scheduled and having performed well, she was expecting the results to be declared. However, the respondent authorities failed to declare the results and the petitioner left with no other option submitted her representation for declaration of the result. The respondents authorities instead of publishing the result issued the recruitment cancellation notice for the various posts advertised, including the advertisement dated 08.03.2018 by stating that the cancellation was due to administrative