The main legal point established in the judgment is that cancellation of selection and issuance of fresh advertisement in public employment must be justified with valid reasons, and arbitrariness has no place in public employment.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. An advertisement was published on 06.11.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement to the post of Gram Rozgar Sevak on contractual basis in different Gram Panchayats of Gajapati district under MGNREGS. The total number of posts was ‘60’. Pursuant to such advertisement, the Petitioners submitted their applications and after scrutiny thereof by the Selection Committee, were found to have been selected for appointment to the said post. A draft select list was published by Opposite Party No. 3. However, the Collector-cum-C.E.O. Zilla Parishad, Gajapati (Opposite Party No. 3) issued letter dated 04.10.2019 indicating the names of ‘44’ eligible candidates for their selection and engagement as Gram Rozgar Sevak and invited objections. While the matter stood thus, suddenly vide office order dated 06.06.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) of the Opp. Party No. 3, the advertisement dated 06.11.2018 was cancelled due to unavoidable reasons and by stating that further advertisement shall be published in near future. A fresh advertisement was published on 18.06.2020 for engagement of ‘74’ posts of Gram Rozgar Sevak. Challenging the cancellation of the earlier advertisement dated 06.11.2018, the Petitioners, all of whom are selected candidates have approached this Court seeking the following relief:

“It is therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI to the opposite parties and, if the opposite parties will fail to show cause or shown insufficient cause made the said Rule absolute by directing the opposite parties to engage the petitioners as per the selection list under Annexure-3 and further quash the letter dated 06.06.2020 under Annexure-4 and may further be pleased to pass any other appropriate order or orders or direction or directions for the ends of justice.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3 and 6. It is basically contended in the counter affidavit that after publication of the advertisement dated 6.11.2018, the Government in P.R. and D.W. Department issued a clarification vide letter dated 29.06.2019 followed by another letter dated 6.8.2019 providing “comprehensive guidelines” for selection and engagement of Gram Rozgar Sevaks. Accordingly, a draft list of ‘2935’ applicants was duly published by the Screening Committee and web-hosted in the district website inviting objections. It is further stated that in the advertisement dated 6.11.2018, the Authority had reserved a right to reject or accept any or all applicants without any reason and that all terms and conditions are subject to change as per the guidelines issued by the government from time to time. It is further stated that the authority had to cancel the advertisement as natural justice of genuine applicants had been violated and that they had sufficient reasons to cancel the same and it is not intentional. It is also given out that as after publication of the re-scrutiny draft list published vide letter dated 4.10.2019, some candidates of previous panel list were not coming into the zone of clarification as per the latest guidelines of government, the earlier advertisement was cancelled. It is, thus, stated that due to receipt of allegation of the Petitioners and public agitation with regard to re-scrutiny process, the panel merit list was not finalized, for which, Opposite Party No. 3 decided that the entire advertisement of Gram Rozgar Sevak should be withdrawn as per the impugned order for giving natural justice to the Applicants and therefore issued a fresh advertisement.

3. Heard Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Sukumar Ghosh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No. 6.

4. It is argued by Ms. Mahapatra that the Petitioners possessed the requisite qualification as per the advertisement and