The selected candidates did not have an indefeasible right to claim appointment, and the management had the discretion to make final decisions on appointments, provided that the decisions were bona fide and for appropriate reasons.

1. Present Special Appeals in question are directed against the order dated 07.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 67077 of 2014 (Aadi Shakti Pandey and 34 others v. Union of India and 5 others), connected with Writ-A No. 33852 of 2016 (Manish Sahu and 11 others v. Union of India and 5 others) and Writ-A No. 37883 of 2016 (Sandip Kumar v. Union of India and 5 others) wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the bunch of writ petitions by concluding that there exists valid reason for refusing the appointment to the petitioner-appellants.

2. Brief background of the case is that appellants claim that pursuant to the advertisement No. 02 of 2011 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Human Resource), Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Kanpur, each one of the appellant had applied for consideration of his candidature for being offered appointment as Technician Trainee/Diploma Trainee in appropriate trade/discipline. Appellants claim that they have been successful in making place for themselves but thereafter fruit of the said selection was not extended to them, and in view of this, they came to this Court for according requisite relief by offering appointment to them.

3. To the claim that has been set up, response had been filed to the effect that selection had been made and provisional offer of appointment for the post of Technician Trainee/Diploma Trainee in appropriate trade/discipline during November, 2011 and May, 2012 respectively has been made, and thereafter, H.A.L. Corporate office on 22.10.2013 reviewed the concern selection process in respect of workmen, wherein advertisements/notifications were issued before 06.04.2013 and the Division was advised to put on hold all recruitments till further orders. Mention was also made that no final offer of appointment be issued till clearance is given by Corporate office.

4. This much is also reflected that thereafter this Court made queries as to whether any decision has been taken further in the light of communication dated 22.10.2013. Pursuant to the same decision was taken on 04.05.2016 by the Executive Director not to offer any appointment and same led to filing of amendment application and amendment application was allowed.

5. After exchange of pleadings, present matter has been taken up for final hearing/disposal with the consent of the parties and learned Single Judge in his turn on each and every aspect of the matter, has not at all found favour with the arguments that has been so advanced and has proceeded to non suit the claim of the petitioner-appellants and thus, petitioner-appellants are once again before this Court.

6. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case engagement of appellants was made on independent assessment of work in question, and it was not at all dependent on any other contingency, further various incumbents lower in merit, have been offered appointment and petitioner-appellants have been left out and denied appointment without any rational basis, in such a situation, learned Single Judge ought to have come to the rescue of the petitioner-appellants by directing for offering appointment to the petitioner-appellants also.

7. Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the respondents contended the said submission by contending before this Court that mere selection does not even the appointment that has been so offered was provisional one ad it could have been kept on hold before it was actually acted upon on rational ad valid situation and here, once policy decision has been taken with particular cut of date and thereafter, no one has been appointed, then merely because appellants got selected , they cannot claim as a matter of right that they be offered appointment with all means. Learned singe Judge has rightly dealt with the issues in its correct perspective, warranting no interference by this Court once again in special Appeal

8. After resp