The Allahabad High Court, comprising Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Praveen Kumar Giri, has observed that while a selected candidate does not possess an indefeasible right to appointment, the employer is also bound not to act arbitrarily in the recruitment process.
The Court made these remarks while hearing a batch of Special Appeals, including Special Appeal No. 203 of 2025 (Rajeev Kumar and 12 others vs State of U.P. and others), arising out of the dismissal of their writ petitions by a Single Judge on 6 March 2025. The connected matters included Special Appeal Nos. 248, 256, 260, 271, 300, 301, 302, and Special Appeal (Defective) No. 265 of 2025.
Background of the Case
The appellants had challenged the recruitment under Advertisement No. 1 of 2013, by which 5723 posts were advertised. However, the selection panel was drawn only for 4556 posts, and no panel was prepared for the remaining 1167 posts. The appellants contended that they were arbitrarily denied appointment due to the non-preparation of the select panel for the said posts.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the available number of vacancies had reduced for various reasons.
Arguments of the Parties
On behalf of the appellants, it was argued that the reduction in the number of posts was arbitrary and lacked a proper examination of records. The appellants contended that the Commission and the Director had acted without justification in decreasing the number of advertised posts.
In response, Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, representing the respondent Board, submitted that the vacancies were reduced due to adjustments made following the Supreme Court’s directions in the appeal arising out of the Full Bench decision in Prashant Kumar Katiyar vs State of U.P. and others [2013 (1) ADJ 523 (FB)]. He further pointed out that re-determination of vacancies pursuant to the judgment in Dhruv Narain Singh vs State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 26307 of 2010, decided on 22 May 2012) led to a reduction of about 10-15% vacancies.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The Court reaffirmed the legal position that although a selected candidate does not have an indefeasible right to appointment, the employer is equally obligated to act fairly and not arbitrarily. The Bench noted:
“Law is settled that a selected candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment, yet it is equally settled that employer cannot act arbitrarily.”
In light of the appellants’ grievances, the Court directed the Board and the Director to file an affidavit from a responsible officer, not below the rank of Secretary, providing a clear breakup and justification for the reduction in the number of vacancies.
The Court ordered the matter to be listed among the top ten cases in the additional cause list on 15 May 2025 and instructed that the required affidavit be filed by that date.
