The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of a recruitment process must be justified by concrete and relevant material, and the authority must follow reservation and roster policy. Additionally, the right to appointment is subject to the authority's duty to fill vacancies in a bona fide manner.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for quashing the memo No. 1592 dated 06.04.2021, whereby after completion of the selection process in pursuance of the Advt. No. 955 (c) dated 08.03.2019, same has been cancelled by the respondent-RIMS and further direction has been issued to take steps for publication of fresh Advertisement.

Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letters in favour of the petitioners in terms of final select list dated 20.10.2020.

3. As per the factual matrix, in the year 2019 i.e. on 08.03.2019, an advertisement bearing Advt. No. 955 (a) and 955 (b) was published for appointment to Grade-III Technical and Non-Technical Posts and further, Advt. No. 955 (c) was published for appointment to Grade-IV post. The present petitioners, having the requisite qualification, had applied for Grade-IV post pursuant to Advt. No. 955 (c). The respondent-RIMS, after verifying the documents and testimonials submitted by the petitioners along with others, have published the select list vide memo No. 4047 dated 20.10.2020, in which the names of the present petitioners also find place. Inspite of publication of final select list, when the appointment letters were not issued, the petitioners filed representation dated 05.01.2021 but no heed was paid on the same. It is petitioners’ further case that while they were waiting for their appointment letters, in the month of June, 2021, they came to know that an order has been issued by respondent No. 2 vide memo No. 1592 dated 06.04.2021, by which the respondents have cancelled the recruitment process pursuant to Advt. No. 955 (c) dated 08.03.2019 for appointment to Grade-IV post and further direction has been issued for publication of fresh Advertisement. The said order of cancellation was issued taking into account letter dated 05.02.2021 issued by the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Jharkhand in terms of order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) though the matter was quite different from that of the present petitioners.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court.

4. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assiduously argues that impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law inasmuch as while issuing the said order, the respondent-authorities have failed to appreciate that in the case of Soni Kumari (supra), the matter was quite different. Learned counsel further argues that in case of Soni Kumari, 100% reservation was given for appointment of teachers of the same district in which appointment was to be done and hence, no outsider could be appointed pursuant to the said advertisement, which was quashed by this Court in Soni Kumari’s case. However, in the instant case, no such averment was made by the respondent-RIMS. It is not a case of the respondents that there were any irregularities, malpractice or other things which forced the respondent authorities to cancel the entire selection process. Learned counsel lastly argues that the respondents have no right to cancel the advertisement without showing any valid reason for cancellation of the said advertisement.

5. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on the following judgments :

(i) Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., [(2003) 7 SCC 285]; &

(ii) Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, [(2021) 4 SCC 631].

6. On 14.02.2022, this Court, after hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the respondent-RIMS as well as State to file specific reply meeting the following queries of the Court :

(i) Whether enquiry report relates to Advertisement No. 955A and B only and not 955C?

(ii) If the enquiry pertains to Advertisement No. 955A and B only, then why process for appointment/ selection has been cancelled for Advert