Order

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.07.2025, whereby the petitioner’s appointment was withdrawn/cancelled.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared in the selection process and during the course of selection process, when the recruitment agency did not award bonus marks on experience, they filed a writ petition challenging such an action and a coordinate Bench of this Court in a separate writ petition bearing SBCW No. 15856/2023, has given interim directions, directing the respondents to provisionally award the bonus marks on the basis of experience gained in terms of the Recruitment Rules and consider his candidature on merits.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that after awarding bonus marks basing on experience, the merit list was drawn and in the merit list, he was meritorious and he was entitled for appointment basing on such a merit list and accordingly he was appointed. Subsequently, by the impugned order, the appointment of the petitioner has been withdrawn/cancelled. Such an order has been passed without issuing any notice before taking such a drastic action.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without any notice and it is also his grievance that his appointment was done basing on the interim orders by awarding bonus marks having found that he was in merit list of the candidates, who were entitled for the appointment.

5. It is also his contention that the respondents have no authority to reverse such appointment, even though such appointment was rightly done.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the award of bonus marks on the basis of interim directions directing the respondents to provisionally award the bonus marks on the basis of experience gained and though there is a direction to consider his candidature on merits but there is no specific direction to appoint him to the post, if he is found to be in merit list. According to him, there are multiple number of candidates similarly placed with the petitioner and their bonus marks were added and the provisional merit list was drawn, however, their candidature was not considered for appointment till the writ petition has been disposed of. However, the petitioner was wrongly given appointment ignoring the similar treatment given to other candidates, who also similarly obtained the interim order like the petitioner.

7. I have gone through the interim directions passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. The interim direction was that the respondents were directed to provisionally award the bonus marks on the basis of experience gained and consequently consider his candidature on merits. Directions to consider the candidature on merits prima facie imposed, in case, the petitioner found meritorious and he is entitled to be within the consideration zone for appointment, the respondents are duty bound to consider his case for appointment in terms of the interim directions, however, if any appointment is given, the same shall be subject to final outcome of the aforesaid writ petition No. 15856/2023.

8. In the present writ petition, with reference to the present petitioner, the respondents appears to have been rightly taken decision, however, similar kind of candidates, who also stand similar to the petitioner, no such decision was taken to appoint, though some of them are entitled to be considered for appointment basing on their merit after addition of bonus marks in terms of the interim directions granted by this Court. Consideration of candidature on merit includes consideration of appointment, if any candidate is within the consideration zone as there was no conditional interim order. Therefore, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is unsustainable as long as his appointment continues subject to final outcome of the writ petition No. 15856/2023. Further, the impugned order has been p