The State Government's decision to cancel the select list was arbitrary and without proper application of mind, and the petitioners had a legitimate expectation to be appointed based on their merit.

1. :- The petitioners whose names find place in the select-list of the candidates and who expected to be appointed to the posts of Assistant Engineer [Environment] in pursuance to Advertisement No. 1/91, published by the Rajasthan Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short 'the Pollution Board') have approached this Court seeking to set aside the order of the State Government by which the select list has been cancelled. A short question for consideration in this petition is, whether the State Government has acted in an arbitrary manner in cancelling the select list and whether the petitioners can challenge the decision of the State Government ?

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition lie in a narrow compass. Advertisement No. 1/91 was published by the Pollution Board for making recruitment on two posts of Environment Engineer and five posts of Assistant Engineer [Environment]. In the present petition, the controversy relates to five vacancies of Assistant Engineer to be filled in, out of the same, three were in the general category and two in the reserved category. Both the petitioners had applied for the posts of Assistant Engineer in general category. They have brilliant academic career, in as much as, petitioner No. 1 passed his B.E. (Civil) in the year 1985 securing 73% marks and thereafter, he passed M.Tech. in Civil Engineering in 1992 with 71% marks, while petitioner No. 2 passed his B.E. (Civil) Hons. in the year 1986 with 76.9% marks and secured 4th position in merit. Selection of the candidates was to be made on the basis of written test and interview. The written test/examination was conducted by the Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur on 23rd November, 1991. A merit list of successful candidates was prepared by it, out of which 24 meritorious candidates were called for interview on February 17, 1991 before the Selection Board for making selections in general category. No candidate of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for reserved seats was found successful in written test, as such, the interviews were held to fill in the vacancies in general category only. After holding interviews, a selection list of the candidates was prepared and the same was sent to the Pollution Board for making appointments. The petitioner's claim that they are in first three candidates of the select list and they had a legitimate expectation to be appointed on the posts of Assistant Engineer [Environment] out of the vacancies in general category. According to them, the decision/action of the State Government in not making appointment is arbitrary, as a result of non-application or absene of proper application of mind.

3. On the other hand, the reply filed by the respondents is quite ambiguous and it does not disclose that there was violation of the procedure to be followed for the process of selection, but the main emphasis is that the select-list was not prepared in a fair and judicious manner. During the course of arguments, the main contention on behalf of the respondents was that the petitioners have no legal right to be appointed on the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Board and that it is outside the purview of judicial scrutiny to go into the reasons for cancelling the select list by the State Government.

4. At the out-set it may be stated that the Pollution Board does not have its own recruitment rules or regulations governing such selection. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, also did not make any submission that there was violation of any procedure to be followed for the process of selection. They also admitted that there was no allegation of malafide against any member of the Selection Board.

5. Before adverting to facual aspect of the case it is necessary to examine the principle issue about the scope of judicial scrutiny in such matters.

6. It is no doubt true that the advertisement of vacancies or the existence of vacancies does