Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 379
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
T. Amarnath Goud, Biswajit Palit, JJ
National Institute Of Technology – Appellant
Versus
Kanti Das – Respondent
WA .No.61 of 2025|WA .No.63 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Somik Deb, P. Lal Debbarma
For the Respondents: P. Roy Barman, B. Majumder, S. Deb (Gupta), S. Bhattacharjee
Candidates possess no indefeasible right to appointment through mere participation in a recruitment process. An employer may validly cancel such recruitment if the process is found inconsistent with binding government policy guidelines, provided the decision is administrative in nature and free from perversity or constitutional discrimination.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and 226 - Service Law - Recruitment process transparency and fairness - Mere participation in a selection process does not confer any indefeasible or vested right upon a candidate to claim appointment - Employer reserves the right to abandon or cancel a recruitment process for valid administrative reasons, including misalignment with government policy guidelines (Paras 8, 11, 28, 40)
(B) Service Law - Recruitment Procedure - Discontinuation of interview process - When an institution adopts updated government instructions mandating the discontinuation of interviews for specific posts, the cancellation of an ongoing process to achieve adherence to such standards is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory - Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere with such policy-driven administrative decisions unless they are found to be perverse (Paras 10, 18, 26, 35)
Facts of the case:
The administration initiated recruitment for non-teaching staff in an educational institution, which initially included interviews as part of the selection criteria. Subsequently, updated government directives were introduced mandating the removal of interviews for junior-level appointments. Realizing the discrepancy between the existing advertisement and the current government mandates, the institution cancelled the entire recruitment process. The initial court set aside this cancellation, terming it arbitrary, which led to these appeals by the administration.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the institution was bound by overriding governmental policy guidelines regarding recruitment protocols. Since the original recruitment process contradicted the new mandate to discontinue interviews, the decision to cancel was legally sound. The court further noted that the recruitment advertisement contained a specific clause allowing the institution to, at its discretion, cancel or defer the recruitment process at any stage without assigning reasons.
Issues: Whether the institution had the legal authority to cancel the recruitment process after its initiation, and whether such cancellation violated the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: An employer is entitled to cancel recruitment proceedings to maintain compliance with statutory or governmental policy changes. As long as the decision is based on valid administrative exigencies rather than mala fide, the court will not interfere. Participation in a selection process does not create a vested right to be appointed, especially when the institutional procedure is found to be in conflict with updated government directives.
Result: Appeals allowed; the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of appeals and factual background of the recruitment dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellants argue that the employer has plenary power to cancel selection processes when policy changes render them invalid. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. respondents contend the cancellation was arbitrary and lacked valid justification. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. analysis of recruitment cancellation in the context of binding government policy and statutory rules. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. final confirmation that cancellation based on policy adherence is lawful, leading to allowance of the appeals. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
Heard.
[2] These writ appeal being WA No. 61 of 2025 [National Institute of Technology (NIT) and Ors. v Kanti Das] and WA. No. 63 of 2025 [National Institute of Technology and Ors. v Sri Joydeep Chakraborty and Ors.] are filed as per Tripura High Court Rules, 2023 under Rule-B (A) of Chapter-VIII of the High Court Rules, 2023 and read with Article-226 of the constitution of India and are clustered for disposal by a common judgment as in all these writ appeals the appellants have embarked on common grounds regarding practice and procedure for filing writ appeals, preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2025 passed in common judgment i.e. WP(C) No.489 of 2024 and WP(C) No.454 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
[3] Short facts emanated are that on 04.04.2019, the respondent No.1 issued a letter to all the Directors of NITs, including the Director of NIT, Agartala i.e. respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.454 of 2024 and respondent No.2 in WP(C) No.489 of 2024 for implementation of the recruitment rules for nonteaching staffs of the NITs based on the recommendation of Oversight Committee. On 26.06.2019, the Board of Governors, NIT, Agartala in its 47th meeting adopted the said letter dated 04.04.2019, issued by the respondent No.1. The NIT, Agartala invited applications from the bonafide citizens of India for recruitment to various non-teaching posts by issuing Recruitment Notice/Advertisement vide No.F.NITA.2(519-Estt)/2019/7717 dated 02.11.2019. Thereafter, on 11.12.2019 the competent authority of Union of India, i.e. the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition issued a letter vide No. F.No.35-4/2016-TS.III to the Registrars of all NITs for discontinuation of interviews at Junior Level Posts as per instructions issued by DOPT, Government of India. In the said communication, the respondent No. 1 brought some changes in the selection procedure and on 21.01.2020 the Board of Governors in its 50th meeting of NIT, Agartala adopted the guidelines, in accordance with instructions issued by DOPT vide its Office Memorandum No. 39029/01/2013-Estt(B)-Part dated 29.12.2015, on the basis of 11.12.2019 supra.
[4] On 15.09.2021, the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in WP(C) No. 454 of 2024 invited applications from the bonafide citizens of India for recruitment to various non-teaching posts vide Notice No. F.NITA.2 (519-Estt)/2019 vol-II 3335, dated 15.09.2021 in continuation of the Advertisement dated 02.11.2019. In WP(C) No. 454 of 2024, the petitioner No. 1 applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil Engineering/Electrical Engineering); the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, the respondents herein, applied for Office Attendant/Lab Attendant (Group-C) and the petitioner Nos. 4 & 5, the respondents herein, applied for the post of Technician (Group-C). In WP(C) No.489 of 2024, the sole petitioner applied for the post of Technician. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition, issued admit cards in favour of the respective petitioners, the respondents herein. The petitioners participated in written test on 10.07.2022, 05.06.2022 & 14.08.2022. The respondent-Registrar of NIT, Agartala issued notifications for publishing the answer keys for questions for the posts of Technicians/Senior Tec
