Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Lalit Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 5300 of 2023|WPS No. 9297 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Acharya, Arpan Verma
For the Respondents: Sangharsh Pandey

A candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely through inclusion in a select list, and the State authorities may legitimately cancel a recruitment process for bona fide administrative reasons, such as lack of financial sanction, provided the decision is not arbitrary or whimsical.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Public Employment - Recruitment Process - Cancellation - Justifiability of Policy Decision - Administrative Exigencies - Financial Sanction - Rejection of representation for holding recruitment due to lack of financial sanction cited as ‘unavoidable reasons’ - Held, employer has discretion to cancel recruitment at any stage if the decision is bona fide, justifiable, and free from arbitrariness or whims - Financial constraint is a valid ground for cancellation - No indefeasible right claimed by candidates merely by appearing in select list - Court under Art. 226 will not interfere with such policy decisions unless arbitrary.

(B) Public Employment - Age Bar - Hardship - Equity - Where recruitment is cancelled on multiple occasions leading to candidates becoming overaged - Respondent authority as a model employer should grant appropriate age relaxation in fresh recruitment process, as the delay and cancellation were attributable to administrative lapses/requirements (Paras 21 & 22).

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the cancellation of recruitment advertisements for various medical posts, including Opthalmic Assistant, occurring thrice without specific reasoning beyond ‘unavoidable reasons’. The process had reached the document verification stage. Petitioners argued that the cancellation was arbitrary and infringed upon their legitimate expectations since some had now become overaged.

Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the lack of financial sanction from the Finance Department justified the administrative decision to cancel. The employer has the discretion to discontinue a recruitment process based on bona fide administrative requirements, provided the decision is not arbitrary.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the recruitment process without assigning specific reasons was arbitrary and whether the candidates had an indefeasible right to appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate does not possess an indefeasible right to appointment merely by being on a select list. As long as the State’s decision to cancel the recruitment process is backed by cogent and germane grounds—such as lack of financial viability—and is not motivated by whims, it constitutes a valid exercise of executive discretion.

Result: Petitions disposed of with directions to the State to grant age relaxation in the impending fresh recruitment process.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving cancellation of recruitment for public posts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments regarding arbitrariness of hiring process cancellation. (Para 9)
3. employer's right to cancel recruitment due to administrative reasons. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. binding precedents on indefeasible rights of selected candidates. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
5. need to provide age relaxation as a model employer. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

1. The Writ Petitioners in both the captioned petitions are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent authorities in cancelling the recruitment process for the posts of Staff Nurse, Radiographer, Medical Lab Technologist and Opthalmic Assistant. This cancellation pertains to the recruitment process initiated vide the advertisement dated 24.3.2022.

2. Since both the writ petitions involve a common question of law and are founded on similar facts and circumstances, they have been clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioners in WPS No.5300/2023 have prayed for the following reliefs :

(1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the order/notice dated 23/06/2023 (Annex.P/1) and issue appropriate writs to reinstate the recruitment process for advertisement dated 18.7.2022 (Annex.P/6) for the post of ophthalmic assistant from the stage it stood cancelled.

(2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The petitioners in WPS No.9297/2023 have prayed for the following reliefs :

(1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 (Annex.P/1), passed by Divisional Joint Director, Health Services and the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the decision of the respondents in respect of the cancellation of the entire selection process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.07.2022.

(2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

5. For the sake of convenience and clarity, WPS No.5300/2023 has been treated as the lead case, and the facts of the said petition are being referred to for the purpose of adjudication. The decision rendered herein shall, however, govern the connected writ petition as well, as the issues raised therein are identical in nature.

6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities initiated a recruitment process for the post of Opthalmic Assistant vide an advertisement dated 24.3.2022. Though the process progressed through multiple stages, including issuance of an eligibility list and the verification of documents, but the advertisement was subsequently cancelled without assigning any reasons. The petitioners contend that this cancellation was done in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

7. The case, as canvassed by the petitioners in WPS No.5300/2023 (treated as the lead case), is that vide a letter dated 23.8.2021, a total 65 posts of Opthalmic Assistant were sanctioned for the Raipur Division, to be filled through a direct recruitment process. It was specifically mandated that these posts were sanctioned exclusively for direct recruitment, accordingly any seats reserved for promotional vacancies were not to be included in the aforementioned sanctioned strength. Respondent No.1 (Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare) issued a directive vide letter dated 21.3.2022 to conduct recruitment based on merit, whereby 85 marks were to be allotted for academic merit and 15 marks for experience. Pursuant to this, an advertisement was issued on 24.3.2022 for 06 posts of Opthalmic Assistant in the Raipur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURAmitendra Kishore Prasad, JLalit Kumar Gupta – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPS No. 5300 of 2023|WPS No. 9297 of 2023

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Lalit Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 5300 of 2023|WPS No. 9297 of 2023