Cancellation of advanced recruitment process solely for procedural lapse in agency engagement without RFP/EOI unjustified absent malpractice; must rest on cogent reasons, amenable to judicial review; cannot supplement grounds later.

JUDGEMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. This intra court appeal is directed against judgement/order dated 09.05.2022 (for short “the impugned judgment”) passed in WP(C) No.82/2020, titled “Sharan Gupta and others v. UT of J&K and others”, whereby the learned Writ Court has quashed the order No.08- JAKEDA of 2019 dated 2^nd December 2019, cancelling the selection process initiated by appellant No.2 pursuant to the Advertisement Notice No.1 of 2017 for the posts of Assistant Engineer, Civil/Electrical/Mechanical/ RE and Advertisement Notice No.2 of 2017 for the posts of Junior Engineer, Civil/Electrical/Mechanical/RE, both dated 12^th September 2017, and further the appellants have been directed to conclude the selection process as far as possible within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the impugned judgement.

2. Appellants, being aggrieved, have assailed impugned judgment, amongst others, on the ground that the competent authority for the cogent reasons terminated the selection process and respondents hold no vested right to challenge the cancellation of the recruitment process, as it suffered from procedural lapse because it was found that the agency namely, M/s LM Energy and Software Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana, authorized to conduct the test/examination after the approval conveyed by the Administrative Department, was engaged without issuing the Request for Proposal (RFP) or Expression of Interest (EOI), thus, depriving the other agencies to participate in the engagement process of the agency for conducting the examinations. It is also contended that after coming into force of the Reorganisation Act, 2019, fresh Reservation roster has been issued by the J&K Government including new categories, therefore, it would be miscarriage of justice, if the present selection process is taken to its logical end.

3. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr.AAG appearing for appellants, has submitted that the agency responsible for conducting the examination was engaged without issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) or an Expression of Interest (EOI). This failure to invite competitive participation compromised the transparency of the recruitment process, necessitating its cancellation. Furthermore, mere participation in a selection process does not confer a vested right upon the respondents to challenge an employer's decision to cancel recruitment, particularly when such a decision is based on cogent reasons. She vehemently argued that following the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019, new reservation categories, including EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) and PSP (Pahari Speaking People) were incorporated into the reservation framework. Consequently, the learned Writ Court erred in quashing the cancellation order.

4. Per contra, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that while appellants maintain the authority to cancel a recruitment process, such power must be exercised only upon 'cogent and justified' grounds. In the present case, there are no allegations of fraud, malpractice, or unfair means regarding the examination conducted by the agency. The agency was hired by appellant No. 2 following formal approval from the competent authority. Consequently, a mere procedural infraction in the agency's engagement cannot invalidate an untainted selection process. It is submitted that the learned Writ Court, therefore, acted correctly in quashing the cancellation order and upholding the process of recruitment for the posts of Assistant