State Cannot Cite Own Procedural Lapses To Arbitrarily Withdraw Appointment Offer After Creating Legitimate Expectation: Allahabad High Court - 2025-07-10

State Cannot Arbitrarily Withdraw Appointment Citing Its Own Lapses: Allahabad High Court

Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in public employment. The court ruled that a state instrumentality, like a university, cannot arbitrarily withdraw an offer of appointment after a candidate has accepted it, especially by citing its own internal procedural errors that the candidate had no knowledge of.

In a decision delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan , the court quashed the Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University's (BBAU) order that rescinded the appointment of two petitioners, Anand Singh Aswal and Niranjan Kumar , for the post of 'Producer'. The court directed the university to appoint the petitioners with all consequential service benefits.

Background of the Case

The case involved two separate writ petitions filed by Anand Singh Aswal and Niranjan Kumar . They had applied for the post of Producer at the university's Electronic Multi Media Research Centre (EMMRC) following an advertisement in January 2017. After successfully clearing the selection process, they received offers of appointment on June 8, 2018, which they formally accepted.

Despite completing all formalities, the petitioners were never given a joining date. After months of waiting and making several representations, they were served with an order dated November 27, 2019, stating that their appointment offers had been withdrawn based on a Board of Management resolution from October 31, 2018.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Arguments: - The petitioners' counsel, Sri Shalabh Singh , argued that the university's action was illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. - A concluded contract was formed upon their acceptance of the offer, and the university's refusal to allow them to join constituted a breach. - They contended that the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were squarely applicable, as they had acted on the university's promise, potentially forgoing other opportunities. - A key argument was the violation of the principles of natural justice, as the university took a decision with severe civil consequences without giving them an opportunity to be heard ( audi alteram partem ). - The petitioners also invoked a principle analogous to the Doctrine of Indoor Management , arguing they were outsiders who acted in good faith and could not be penalized for the university's internal procedural irregularities, such as the allegedly flawed composition of the selection committee.

University's Arguments: - The university, represented by Dr. V.K. Singh , defended the withdrawal by claiming the selection committee's quorum was deficient as per the MOU with the UGC and Consortium for Educational Communication (CEC). - It relied on clauses in the advertisement that reserved the university's right to withdraw any post at any time. - The university also cited a lack of financial assistance from the UGC for the project as a reason for the decision. - It was argued that since a final appointment order was never issued, the petitioners had no indefeasible right to the post.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan found the university's actions to be a "blatant exercise of arbitrary discretion" and a violation of fundamental legal principles. The court made several key observations:

Violation of Article 14: The court held that the university's contradictory actions—approving the selection on January 30, 2018, and later withdrawing it based on a pre-existing flaw—were illogical and arbitrary. It cited the landmark Supreme Court judgments in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India to emphasize that state actions must be fair and non-arbitrary.

Principles of Natural Justice: The court highlighted that withdrawing the appointment had severe civil consequences for the petitioners' careers. Citing State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei , the court ruled that the university was obligated to provide the petitioners with a hearing before taking such an adverse decision. The impugned order was also criticized for being unreasoned, especially after a prior High Court direction to pass a reasoned order.

“I have also noted the fact that before withdrawing the offer of appointment of the petitioners for the post of Producer, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners whereas the law is trite on the subject... if any action or inaction of the authorities entail severe civil consequences, impacting his/ her livelihood or career, those inaction or action must be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.”

Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation: The court found that by issuing a formal offer of appointment, the university created a legitimate expectation. The petitioners acted upon this promise to their detriment. Citing M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh , the court held that the university was estopped from going back on its promise.

University's Own Fault: The court strongly disapproved of the university using its own alleged procedural error as a shield.

“If the committee was wrongly formed from the very beginning, then the question arises as to why did the Board of Management approve such committee on 30.01.2018 and issued offer of appointment on 08.06.2018. The government body should not approve something one day and cancel it the next day based on reason that existed all along...”

Final Decision

The court distinguished the case from precedents like Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India , noting that while the state is not obligated to fill all vacancies, its decision not to do so cannot be arbitrary. In this instance, the university's decision-making process was found to be mala fide and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Consequently, the court quashed the withdrawal order of November 27, 2019, and the underlying board resolutions. It directed the university to "forthwith give effect to the offer of appointment dated 08.06.2018 and appoint the petitioners on the post of Producer with all consequential service benefits."