The Allahabad High Court has quashed the withdrawal of appointment offers issued to two selected candidates for the post of Producer at the Electronic Multi Media Research Centre (EMMRC) of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow. The Court held that such withdrawal entails “severe civil consequences affecting livelihood and career” and directed the University to implement the original offer of appointment with all consequential service benefits.
The decision was rendered by Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan in Writ-A No. 35844 of 2019 (Anand Singh Aswal v. Union of India & Ors.) and Writ-A No. 589 of 2020 (Niranjan Kumar v. Vice Chancellor, BBAU & Anr.), through a common judgment.
Background
The petitioners were selected for the post of Producer following an advertisement issued on January 13, 2017. The Board of Management approved their selection on January 30, 2018, and formal offers of appointment were issued on June 8, 2018. The petitioners accepted the offers, completing all procedural formalities.
However, by an order dated November 27, 2019, the University withdrew the appointments. The withdrawal was based on a Board of Management resolution dated October 31, 2018, confirmed on August 20, 2019, citing procedural deficiencies in the constitution of the Selection Committee.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that the withdrawal order was arbitrary, unreasoned, and violative of principles of natural justice. They emphasized that they were given no opportunity to respond before the adverse action was taken. Referring to the withdrawal, they submitted that:
“The impugned order dated 27.11.2019 was passed without assigning any reasons… thereby undermining transparency and fairness.”
It was argued that the appointment process had received due approval, and if the Selection Committee was flawed, it should not have been approved at all. The petitioners relied on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the principle of legitimate expectation.
“If the committee was wrongly formed from the beginning, then the question arises as to why did the BOM approve these selection in the first place?”
“The actions of the opposite parties constitute a clear breach of a concluded contract entered into with the petitioners.”
They further stated:
“The decision to withdraw the appointment offer entails severe civil consequences for the petitioners, impacting their livelihood and career.”
Respondents’ Submissions
The University and UGC argued that the selection committee lacked quorum as per the Memorandum of Understanding, and the necessary experts were not present. Additionally, they stated that the media centre was run on a project mode dependent on financial support, which was not provided.
Citing Supreme Court precedent, they argued:
“A candidate placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available… But there is a caveat. The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate.”
(Ref: Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025) 2 SCC 1, para 64)
Court’s Observations and Findings
The High Court held that the impugned withdrawal was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and lacked fairness and transparency. Justice Chauhan noted:
“The requirement to record reasons is a fundamental principle of natural justice which acts as a check against arbitrary exercise of power and ensures fairness.”
The Court observed that:
“The impugned order dated 27.11.2019, no reason of any kind whatsoever has been given… The opposite parties acted arbitrarily and in violation of principles of natural justice.”
Addressing the principle of legitimate expectation, the Court stated:
“Though the petitioners have got no absolute right of appointment in these circumstances, but their expectation cannot be defeated arbitrarily or without adhering to principles of fairness and reasonableness.”
On the issue of promissory estoppel, the Court noted:
“Where any party makes promise on which the other party acts to his detriment, the promisor is estopped from going back on the promise.”
Additionally, the Court expressed concern that the appointment was withdrawn for reasons that were never communicated to the petitioners:
“It took about two years from the date of interview… to understand by the Competent Authority that the committee was wrongly formed.”
The Court held the University’s action to be inequitable:
“The government body should not approve something one day and cancel it the next day based on reason that existed all along, unless something new and significant came up.”
Final Decision
The Court quashed:
- The impugned order dated November 27, 2019,
- The Board of Management resolution dated October 31, 2018, and
- The confirmation order dated August 20, 2019,
insofar as they related to the petitioners.
The Court directed:
“The opposite parties are directed 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.”
Both writ petitions were allowed. No order as to costs.
