Judgment

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.—These two writ petitions raise a common question for determination, therefore, both are taken up for disposal together, and shall be governed by this judgment.

2. The petitioners are stated to have offered their candidature for the post of Probationary officers and Banking Associates sought to be filled up by the respondents in terms of Notification no. HRD-Rectt-2018-1564 dated 06.10.2018 and subsequently participated in the selection process. Before the selection list could be issued the respondents issued a notice dated 15th April, 2020, cancelling the whole selection process. Subsequent thereto, an advertisement notice ref no. JKB/HR-Rectt-2020-27 & 28 dated 01.06.2020 was issued by the respondent Bank inviting applications from the desirous candidates for the posts of Probationary Officers and Banking Associates.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved of the Notice dated 15th April, 2020, cancelling the selection process and of the advertisement notice ref no. JKB/HR-Rectt-2020-27 & 28 dated 01.06.2020, advertising the posts of Probationary Officers & Banking Associates, for short impugned notices, therefore, are seeking its quashment inter alia on the following grounds:

a) That no reasons have been disclosed by the Bank while issuing the impugned notice dated 15th April, 2020, cancelling the selection process conducted for the posts of Probationary Officers and Banking Associates and the failure of respondents to give reasons in support of its decision amounts to denial of justice;

b) That agency which conducted the online examination in question has a reputed track record; therefore, the cancellation of the process does not appear to be bonafide and it being so the impugned decision of cancelling the selection process is arbitrary and illegal, therefore, deserves to be declared as ultra-vires of the Constitution;

c) That a limited right of fair consideration is available to a candidate who participates in the selection process which cannot be taken away by arbitrary means and unreasonably. The decision to cancel the selection process is not backed by any cogent material;

d) That the Bank has got swayed by the direction issued by the respondent no. 3 which was issued absolutely without any basis or with the support of cogent material, therefore, the decision is irrational and unfair;

e) That the law does not permit the authority to exercise power in an arbitrary manner; etcetera.

4. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed their reply.

5. Respondents 1 and 2, in their reply after giving a brief history of the case, have resisted the claim of the petitioners, amongst others, on the grounds, that:

6. It is settled position of law that merely by participating in the recruitment process the candidates do not possess a vested right to get appointed to the advertised post; the candidates do not acquire any right to the post even on selection; no statutory right of the petitioners is infringed by the withdrawal of the advertisement notice which was not issued in furtherance of any rules or regulations; etcetera.

7. Respondent no. 3 in his reply has stated, inter alia, that no fundamental, legal or statutory right of the petitioners is infringed by the respondents by cancelling the selection process; that selection criteria (uniform assessment score of 40% across all districts) for the post of Probationary Officers was changed mid course, which was bad in law and not consistent with the recruitment policy of the Bank; that post re-organization of erstwhile State was converted into two Union Territories which effected the permanent residency concept in the matte of recruitment in question, therefore, the continuance of the process was not consistent with legal framework; that the Bank followed the process of recruitment which was based on district-wise requirements which arrangement, reportedly, was not a part of the recruitment policy of the Bank earlier but it was changed on 27.12.2018 and the