The main legal point established in the judgment is that a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right for appointment, and the State has the discretion not to fill up all vacancies. The decision to cancel the selection process should be taken in good faith and based on sufficient reasons.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.C.Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the respondent no. 1 i.e Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health, Government of U.P, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition by which the selection for the post of X-ray Technician initiated through advertisement dated 15.10.2013 has been cancelled on the grounds as indicated in the said order. A further prayer is for a Mandamus commanding the respondents to complete the formalities of the selection process for the aforesaid post and for declaration of the result.

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that an advertisement dated 10.09.2010 was issued by the respondent no. 2 for filling up 13 posts of X-ray Technician. Again an advertisement dated 23.02.2011 was issued by the respondent no. 2 for filling up 102 posts of X-ray Technician. In pursuance thereof, the selection process started and in February, 2012 an interview had been fixed. Subsequently after the selection had taken place, a new Government was formed in July, 2012 which cancelled the entire selection process vide order dated 17.07.2012 for the post of X-ray Technician. The said decision was challenged before this Court by various persons in Writ petition No. 3807 (SS) of 2012 Inre; Chanchal Mishra and Ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors. This Court vide order dated 18.08.2012 passed an interim order restraining the respondents from holding a fresh selection for the post of X-ray Technician. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 17.12.2012, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the petition modified the earlier order and directed the respondents to initiate and complete the process of selection for regular appointment on the post of X-ray Technician within a period of three months. In pursuance thereof, the respondents issued an advertisement dated 15.10.2013 for filling in 287 posts of X-ray Technician. The petitioner applied in pursuance thereof. A complaint was made against the said selection and an inquiry was constituted on the basis of the said complaint. The inquiry report was submitted and thereafter the impugned order dated 21.10.2014 was passed by the respondents cancelling the entire selection process. Being aggrieved with the said order, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that four grounds have been indicated while cancelling the selection process as initiated in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.10.2013 i.e (a) there was no transparency in the selection process adopted by the private agency which was conducting the selection (b) there was complaint against one officer, who was a member of the selection committee, of having indulged in corruption and being partisan (c) there was difference in the ink of the marks awarded to the candidates and even the handwriting was different whereby the selection process became suspect and (d) complaints have been received pertaining to corrupt practices having been adopted in the selection.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire selection could not have been cancelled by the respondents on the aforesaid grounds rather the selection was cancelled in order to accommodate certain persons who are unhappy with the selection. It is also contended that once the selection process had commenced the respondents were precluded from cancelling the same as the petitioner acquired a vested right for appointment. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was ever selected.

6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors, 2006 11 SCC 356 and Joginder Pal and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors, 2014 6 SCC 644.

7. On the other hand, Sri. D.C. Pathak, l