A candidate selected through a recruitment process later found, after due inquiry, to have serious procedural irregularities does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment, and the decision to cancel such a selection is not arbitrary.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Right to equality and equal opportunity in public employment - Principle that arbitrariness is antithetical to these guarantees. (Para 15)

(B) Service Law - Selection and Appointment - Mere selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment - Valid and bona fide reasons, such as procedural irregularities in the selection process, justify non-appointment or cancellation of the selection. (Paras 10, 12, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The applicants were selected in 1996-97 for posts of Majdoor, Fireman, and Messenger at the Central Ordnance Depot, Kanpur. Appointments were withheld after a high-level Staff Court of Inquiry found serious procedural irregularities and lack of transparency in the selection process, though bribery was not proven. This initial decision to withhold appointments was upheld by the Tribunal, the High Court, and the Supreme Court. Later, the applicants challenged a fresh recruitment notification for similar posts, claiming a vested right based on the earlier selection and a subsequent recommendation from the Army Headquarters to consider them for appointment. The respondents argued that the selection was cancelled due to irregularities and the fresh notification was for vacancies from 2010 onwards, not the 1997 recruitment.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the earlier selection was justifiably cancelled due to proven procedural irregularities. The court noted that while non-arbitrary state action is required, the respondents had valid, bona fide reasons for their decision, supported by a detailed inquiry. The mere promotion or exoneration of some officers involved did not render the selection process fair. The applicants had no vested right to appointment based on a select list from a tainted process, and they could not challenge a fresh notification for later vacancies.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicants had acquired an indefeasible right to appointment based on the 1997 selection, and whether the respondents' decision to withhold appointments and issue a fresh notification was arbitrary or mala fide.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that where a selection process is found, after due inquiry, to be vitiated by procedural irregularities and a lack of transparency, the government has the authority to cancel the selection and withhold appointments. Mere empanelment on a select list does not create a vested right to appointment, and such a decision cannot be considered arbitrary if based on valid and bona fide reasons stemming from a proper inquiry. The doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to a compromised recruitment process. Result : Original Application dismissed. (Para 19)

Table of Content
1. facts of the case: selection, complaints, and abeyance of appointments (Para 1 , 2)
2. procedural history and earlier court orders on the same selection (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments of both parties regarding validity of selection and appointment (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. legal analysis: no vested right to appointment in tainted selection (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. final dismissal of the original application (Para 19)

1. Ram Ji Yadav a/a 53 years, S/o Shri Mangal Prasad, R/o H.No. 9, Sujatganj, PO-COD Kanpur, Kanpur. 2. Dasrat Singh a/a 55 years, S/o Nepal Singh, R/o Vill & Post- Rawatpur- Chawdhriyan, Kanpur Dehat. 3. Abdul Saleem a/a 53 years, S/o Abdul Rahman, R/o A-251, World Bank Colony, Pokhpur, Jajmau, Kanpur. 4. Sailendra Kumar Chaturvedi a/a 52 years, S/o Ram Abhilash Chaturvedi, R/o 226/1, Safipur, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur. 5. Arjun Kumar Sharma a/a 53 years, S/o Sada Shiv Sharma, R/o H. No.217, COD Colony, Koyla Nagar, Kanpur.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicants had applied against the vacancies released by the Army Head Quarter vide order dated 30.08.1996 for 68 Majdoor, order dated 20.09.1996 for 20 Fireman and the order dated 10.10.1996 for 2 Messenger in the Central Ordinance Depot, Kanpur. Thereafter, some of the applicants were allowed to join in their respective posts for which they were selected. In the meantime, some complaints were lodged with the allegations that irregularities were committed in the selections to these posts. The C.O.D. Majdoor Sangh had assailed the selection list by filing a CMWP No.2121/1998 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide an order dated 20.01.1998. On 03.03.1998 an inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the alleged inquiry and it submitted the report on 16.05.1998 that the allegations were false and mischievous. Thereafter, respondent no.2 gave permission/sanction for issuing appointment letters to the selected candidates. The Army Headquarter vide letter dated 21.05.1998 gave clearance to issue appointment letters. 27 appointment letters were processed and signed by the commandant on 26.05.1998 and they were dispatched by registered post on the same day. Some of the successful candidates appeared on 27.05.1998 and reported for joining duties. However, on 29.05.1998, respondent no.5 directed that the applicants have to await further instructions as advised to them by the higher authorities. Some of the applicants were not allowed to join and some denied work permission whereas others were not even issued/allowed to join as various complaints were received against the selection proceedings and the army headquarter vide telex order dated 27-05- 1998 directed to keep the appointments in abeyance until further orders. The telex message was followed by letter No. AHQQ No.370726/05-14 dated 27-05-1998. Aggrieved by this action of the army headquarters several applications have been filed in this tribunal for quashing the order dated 27-05-1998 and for a direction to the respondents to permit the selected candidates to discharge their duties and to pay their salary and other benefits admissible against their posts w.e.f. 26-05-1998. It has also been prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to issue appointment letters to remaining selected candidates as per list dated 20-12-1997 and they may be treated in service.

3. Earlier the applicants filed Original Application before this Tribunal and on this issue, the leading O.A No. 917/98 along with connected matters, was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 03.08.2000. The operative para of the order dated 03.08.2000 is quoted below:- "For the reasons stated above, though we do not find any merit in the O.As and all the applications are being dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to conclude the Court of enquiry and pass orders in accordance with law expeditiously, in any case within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5501

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL1817/2016O.A./1288/2016

A candidate selected through a recruitment process later found, after due inquiry, to have serious procedural irregularities does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment, and the decision to cancel such a selection is not arbitrary.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
1817/2016
O.A./1288/2016