Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
PANKAJ MITHAL, ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Kritika Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - This order will govern the disposal of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.1130/2022, 1131/2022 and 1132/2022 since it is jointly submitted by the parties that these special appeals involve common issue in the identical fact situation. The issue involved in these appeals is 'whether the candidates who have applied does have any legal right to insist the authority that the recruitment process set in motion be carried out to its logical end'?
2. Vide impugned judgment dated 27.08.2022, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions submitted by the appellants by granting liberty to the respondents to make regular appointment / selection in accordance with law and till regularly selected candidates are made available, the services of the appellants shall not be discontinued.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant/writ petitioners (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioners') participated in the process for selection initiated by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (for short 'RUHS') by issuing advertisement dated 10.12.2015 for holding selections for t
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of the entire selection process should only be considered if there is no chance of segregating genuine candidates from those ....
Candidates participating in a recruitment process do not have a legal right to appointment if the selection process is found to be flawed and thus invalid.
The State's authority to cancel a selection process can be judicially reviewed on the touchstone of reasonableness, and the cancellation must be based on relevant factors and not mala-fide or arbitra....
Decisions affecting public employment must be lawful and justified, with candidates not holding an indefeasible right to appointment, but protected from arbitrary state actions.
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.
The judgment emphasizes the statutory requirement for rules to have binding effect and the need for publication in the official gazette. It also highlights the limited scope for interference under Ar....
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
Listen Article