A person does not have a vested right to claim appointment, and the decision to cancel a recruitment process must be bonafide and for just and appropriate reasons.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In these writ petitions, petitioners have prayed to quash the decision dated 03.12.2019 contained in Ref. No.CCL/Rect./SG/2019/3648 taken by the respondents-Central Coalfields Limited, wherein they have decided to cancel the advertisement published for recruitment of 500 Security Guards vide Employment Notice No.CCL/G.M.(P&IR/R/527/2014/7104 dated 25.09.2014. Petitioners also pray to appoint them on the post of Security Guards as they have applied pursuant to the advertisement and fulfilled all the criteria for being appointed.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Central Coalfields Limited had published an advertisement No.CCL/G.M.(P&IR/R/527/2014/7104 dated 25.09.2014 through which they decided to recruit and appoint 500 Security Guards and persons in other technical posts, like, Accountant etc. Written test was conducted and these petitioners duly qualified the written test, but, thereafter the Central Coalfields Limited went silent and did not proceed with the recruitment process as a result of which petitioners had to approach this Court by filing these writ petitions. This Court by order dated 28.11.2019 had directed the Central Coalfields Limited to take a decision on the recruitment either way. Central Coalfields Limited, thereafter decided to cancel the recruitment so far as it related to appointment of 500 Security Guards is concerned. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid decision is absolutely illegal, as just because they had approached the High Court, the aforesaid decision was taken. Their contention is that the respondents, on one hand, went on with the appointment of other technical posts, but so far as Security Guards are concerned, they have abandoned the process, which is arbitrary. Their claim is that Central Coalfields Limited should proceed with the recruitment process and appoint the petitioners. Lastly they argued that the order is non-speaking and thus, cancellation of the process can be treated to be arbitrary as it does not fulfill the requirement of reasonableness.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents led by Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta submitted that whether to recruit or not to recruit is absolutely the prerogative of the employer, which cannot be questioned. Employer has right to abandon any recruitment process. No one has any right to be appointed. Thus, petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the decision wherein Central Coalfields Limited has decided to abandon and cancel the recruitment process. It is their contention that the ground for cancellation is cogent and cannot be said to be arbitrary. As per them, there is a large number of workmen in Central Coalfields Limited, who were identified to be surplus. When it came to the notice that there was surplus manpower, it was decided that the excess manpower must be adjusted against the existing vacancy of Security Personnel. Further, there are large number of dependents seeking appointment on compassionate ground, so a policy decision was taken to appoint the applicants of compassionate ground against the existing vacancies of Security Guards. Thus, a conscious decision was taken by the Directors of the Company not to proceed with the advertisement to fill the posts of Security Personnel. So far as appointing Accountants and others, they submit that these are technical posts, thus, the respondents proceeded. Mr. Mehta further submits that the selection process was in three folds, first a written test, thereafter physical test and the third step was interview and in this case only the written test was conducted and the rest of the test processes were yet to be conducted.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

6. It is well settled principle of law that a person does not have any vested right of appointment. Even selectee has no indefeasible right to appointment nor is State under d