In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissed the writ petition filed by Sachin Srivastava against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Department of Agriculture Education and Research, asserting that candidates do not have an absolute or “indefeasible” right to be appointed based solely on placement in a selection process. The court emphasized that appointment decisions, even when vacancies exist, fall within the discretion of the authorities, provided such decisions are not arbitrary.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Sachin Srivastava, represented by Advocate Deep Narayan Tripathi, who argued that he should be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Agriculture Business Management based on Advertisement No. 9/2021, under which he had applied in the general category. After the cancellation of the selected candidate, Ashutosh Chaturvedi, due to qualification discrepancies, Srivastava contended that the authorities should have activated the waiting list from the 2021 advertisement instead of issuing a fresh advertisement in 2024 for the same position. The State, represented by Standing Counsel C.S.C. and Advocate Prashant Kumar Singh, maintained that the 2021 advertisement had been effectively canceled and replaced by Advertisement No. 3/2024.
Key Legal Issues and Arguments
The case hinged on two primary legal issues:
1. Right to Appointment Based on Selection: Srivastava argued that the authorities erred in not appointing him after the cancellation of the previously selected candidate. He relied on precedent from Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) and subsequent judgments suggesting that a selected candidate, or one on a waiting list, holds a right to appointment if vacancies exist.
2. Challenge to the Fresh Advertisement: Srivastava also challenged the legality of Advertisement No. 3/2024, alleging that it introduced revised qualifications for the position without necessary approval from the University Grants Commission (UGC). The court noted, however, that Srivastava had failed to apply under the new advertisement and had delayed challenging it until several months after the closing date.
The respondents, represented by Prashant Kumar Singh, cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (2024), affirming that selection does not guarantee appointment. Authorities argued that the issuance of a fresh advertisement rendered the prior process moot, and Srivastava’s failure to timely contest the new qualifications weakened his claim.
Observations and Ruling
Justice Abdul Moin observed that Srivastava did not possess a legally enforceable right to be appointed based on the 2021 advertisement, especially after a fresh advertisement superseded it. Quoting the Supreme Court’s position, the court stated, “Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment.” The judgment underscored that while candidates on a select list might anticipate appointment, such expectations are contingent on valid administrative decisions, which may include re-advertising posts or altering qualifications if done in good faith.
The court criticized Srivastava’s delayed challenge to the 2024 advertisement, remarking that “the Court is not expected to come to the rescue of a litigant who chooses not to challenge the advertisement timely.”
