Jharkhand High Court
Anjali Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 July, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:18951
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2912 of 2025
---------
1. Anjali Gupta, aged about 25 years, D/o Bashuda Saw, Resident of village- Oreya, P.O. Oreya, P.S. Miffasil, District- Hararibaga-825303.
2. Deepty Merlin Minz, aged about 35 years, D/o Lucas Mina, Resident of - 1906/A-2, Bara Ghaghra Moga Bagicha, Near Petrol Pump, P.O. + P.S Doranda District Ranchi.
3. Amit Kumar, aged about 24 years, Son of Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Resident of Ward-5, Brham Tori, P.O. & PS- Markacho, Dist-Koderma, 825318.
4. Gagan Kumar, aged about 27 years, Son of Binay Kumar, Resident of Bhagat talab, palihari gurudih, P.O + P.S-Gumia, District- Bokaro-829111.
5. Kaushal Kumar, aged about 27 years, Son of Ramlal Mehta Resident of Ward no. 2, village- Bigha, PO & PS- Phulwariya, District- Koderma-825418
6. Ruplal Prasad, aged about 36 years, Son of Mahadev Mahto, Resident of Vill-Kalhabar, PO-Kalhabar, P.S-Barkatha, District- Hazaribagh-825323 ....Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director, Directorate of Extension, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India officiation at Krishi Bhawan, P.O.- Krishi Bhawan, P.S. Parliament Street & District -New Delhi (110001).
3. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of Jharkhand officiating at Nepal House P.O.- Doranda, P.S.-Doranda & District - Ranchi.
4. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Agricultural Technology Management Agency, Koderma officiating at Collectorate Building, P.O.- Koderma, P.S.- Koderma & District - Koderma.
5. District Agriculture Officer-cum-Project Director, Agricultural Technology Management Agency, Koderma, officiating at District Agriculture Office, Koderma, P.O. - Koderma, P.S. - Koderma & District -Koderma.
6. Deputy Development Commissioner, Koderma, officiating at Collectorate Building, Koderma, P.O. -Koderma, P.S. - Koderma & District - Koderma.
7. Deputy Superintendent of Education, Koderma, officiating at District Education Office, Koderma, P.O.-Koderma, P.S.- Koderma & District - Koderma.
8. District Welfare Officer, Koderma, officiating at District Welfare Office, P.O.- Koderma, P.S.- Koderma & District - Koderma ....Respondents 1 2025:JHHC:18951
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr.Advocate Ms. Tejaswita Safalta, Advocate Ms. Satakchhi Priya Verma, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, S.C. (L&C)-III Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-III
---------
03/Dated:-11.07.2025
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs:
i. For issuance of appropriate writ(s) order(s)/direction(s) particularly in the nature of "certiorari" quashing and setting aside the Press Release dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-7) issued under the pen and signature of Respondent no. 5 whereby and whereunder the entire recruitment process for appointment of Assistant Technology Manager (ATM) and Block Technology Manager (BTM) in the district of Koderma after having being conducted in a completely fair and transparent manner has been cancelled in completely arbitrary and whimsical manner (assigning reasons which is completely not in consonance with the provisions) giving a complete go by to the provisions as contained in the Guidelines for State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms (ATMA) Scheme, 2018 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India.
ii. For showing cause the respondents to explain before this Hon'ble Court the reason for issuance of the impugned Press Release dated 28.03.2025 cancelling the recruitment process when the entire recruitment process has been done in a completely fair and transparent manner and in accordance to the Guidelines for State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms (ATMA) Scheme, 2018 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, that too after the petitioners having successfully qualified in the skill test as well as the interview and their names find place in the final merit list dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure-6) after document verification.
iii. Upon failure to show sufficient cause if any, issue appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the advertisement dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure-12) issued by Agricultural Technology Management Agency, Koderma for appointments to be done on the same very post in which the petitioners stood qualified and their name published in the final merit list for appointment to be done as Assistant Technology Manager (ATM) and Block Technology Manager (BTM).
iv. For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Assistant Technology Manager (ATM) and Block Technology Manager (BTM) respectively in the district of Koderma as they have successfully participated in the selection process and have qualified as selected candidates having their names published in the final merit list dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure-6). 2
2025:JHHC:18951
3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the "Support to State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms (ATMA) Scheme, 2018" (hereinafter "2018 Guidelines") (Annexure-
1), framed under the Krishonnati Yojana and governed by the Sub-Mission on Agricultural Extension (SMAE), operates as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme with a cost-sharing pattern of 60:40 between the Centre and General States, 90:10 for North-Eastern and Himalayan States, and 100% Central funding for Union Territories, with fund allocation based on block numbers, farm families, and manpower deployment.
Under paragraph 6.2 (Page 41 of the Guidelines), funds are released in two installments, contingent on the submission of utilization certificates and progress reports, with mandatory Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) mechanisms implemented. The 2018 Guidelines also prescribe a transparent and merit-based contractual recruitment process for Assistant Technology Managers (ATM) and Block Technology Managers (BTM), requiring wide publicity, online applications, written tests or interviews, and prohibiting arbitrary appointments. Additionally, they mandate digital payment of salaries, entitlement to EPF and ESIC benefits, provision for annual increments of 10% and continuity of leadership posts through non-contractual appointments so as to maintain structural and administrative stability.
4. Further fact reveals that vide Notice dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure-2), the Agricultural Technology Management Agency, Koderma, through Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, invited applications 3 2025:JHHC:18951 for the contractual appointment of ten (10) Assistant Technology Managers (ATMs) and five (5) Block Technology Managers (BTMs). The prescribed qualifications included a postgraduate degree with two years of field experience and computer proficiency for BTMs, and a graduate or postgraduate degree with preferably one year of field experience for ATMs. The appointments were to be purely contractual for an initial period of one year, extendable annually based on performance appraisal.
The advertisement dated 01.06.2023 prescribed a detailed merit-based evaluation system for selection to the posts of ATM and BTM, allocating marks for educational qualifications, computer proficiency, field experience, service in ATMA/SAMETI, and interview performance. The petitioners being fully eligible and possessing the requisite qualifications duly applied for the said posts, with Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 applying for ATM and Petitioner No. 5 applying for BTM.
Upon verification, the Respondents published a verified list of candidates on 12.07.2023 (Annexure-3), wherein the names of all the petitioners were included.
5. Thereafter, a press release dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure-4) was issued by the Respondents for conducting the skill test. The provisional list appended with the press release contained the names of all these Petitioners. The skill test was conducted on 05.10.2024, in which the Petitioners participated and qualified. Thereafter, A press release dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure-5) was issued for conducting interview and document 4 2025:JHHC:18951 verification supposed to be conducted on 18.12.2024. The Petitioners appeared on the said date. The final result dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure-6) was published and evidently Petitioner no. 5 was selected under General Category at serial no.2 for the post of BTM, Koderma and Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were selected for the post of ATM, Koderma at serial nos. 6, 19, 16, 12, and 7 respectively.
6. However, all of a sudden vide Press Release dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-7), issued by Respondent No. 5, the District Agriculture Officer-cum-Project Director, the entire selection process for the posts of Block Technology Manager (BTM) and Assistant Technology Manager (ATM) was arbitrarily cancelled, citing Corrigendum No. 3020 dated 19.08.2016 and Clause 5 of Departmental Resolution dated 11.08.2014, which allegedly dispensed with the requirement of interviews for such appointments.
7. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions:
(i) The reasoning furnished in the Press Release dated 28.03.2025 is legally unsound, as it completely disregards the binding provisions of the 2018 Guidelines which specifically mandates the inclusion of an interview stage for the appointment of Assistant Technology Manager and Block Technology Manager under Paragraph 2.9. He further submits that the circumvention of the guidelines is a violation of established legal framework, warranting intervention by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) The Resolutions dated 11.08.2014 and 19.08.2016, referred to 5 2025:JHHC:18951 in the impugned Press Release dated 28.03.2025, are non-gazetted executive instructions and, therefore, cannot override the binding Central Guidelines issued in 2018 under the Support to State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms (ATMA) Scheme. The 2018 Guidelines, framed under a centrally sponsored scheme, uniformly prescribe the qualifications and mandatory inclusion of an interview stage for appointment to the posts of Assistant Technology Manager (ATM) and Block Technology Manager (BTM) across the Country. The Respondents, having adopted the ATMA Scheme and availed substantial central funding, are estopped from deviating from or nullifying the central norms through reliance on outdated State Resolutions.
(iii) It is a settled principle that State executive instructions cannot override binding Central Guidelines, particularly under centrally sponsored schemes. The action of cancelling the recruitment process, which was conducted in strict adherence to the 2018 Guidelines, is arbitrary, ultra vires, and bad in law. Furthermore, the ATMA Scheme, with up to 90% funding contributed by the Central Government, clearly positions the State Government as a mere implementing agency. Any unilateral deviation by the State violates Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution and frustrates the very objective of the Scheme, necessitating judicial intervention.
(iv) While the written examination constitutes a crucial component of the selection process for evaluating a candidate's academic proficiency and intellectual aptitude, the interview stage serves as an equally essential and non-negotiable mechanism to assess the candidate's overall intellectual calibre and personal attributes. The interview, therefore, forms an integral and indispensable part of a holistic assessment framework. The Hon'ble 6 2025:JHHC:18951 Supreme Court, through various authoritative pronouncements, has consistently recognised importance of interviews and an advertisement dated 11.01.2022 issued by Agricultural Technology Management Agency, Ranchi was cancelled on the ground that it did not provide for an interview and was in direct violation of the mandatory 2018 Guidelines, thus, inclusion of an interview stage is a procedural and substantive necessity under the 2018 Guidelines.
(v) It is a well-settled principle of law that the cancellation of an entire selection process after its completion, particularly after the preparation of the final merit list, is impermissible unless there exist valid and bona fide reasons vitiating the entire process. In the present case, the Respondents seek to annul the concluded recruitment and initiate a fresh process, which effectively amounts to changing the "rules of the game after the game has been played" thereby depriving the petitioners of their legitimate right to consideration for appointment.
(vi) No cogent or substantiated grounds, such as allegations of illegality, fraud, or fundamental procedural infirmities, have been cited by the Respondents to warrant such cancellation. The impugned action, being arbitrary, unreasonable, and devoid of legal justification, is unsustainable in law and mere administrative or procedural deviations that do not materially affect the selection process cannot justify wholesale cancellation.
(vii) The Respondents' reliance on non-gazetted and obsolete State Resolutions, inconsistent with the binding 2018 Central Guidelines under the ATMA Scheme, cannot constitute a valid ground for cancelling a duly conducted selection process. Once the recruitment was carried out strictly as per the Central Guidelines, including the interview stage, the Respondents were estopped from retrospectively 7 2025:JHHC:18951 applying outdated norms. In absence of any demonstrated illegality or mala fides, the cancellation is manifestly arbitrary, violative of Article 14, and defeats the Petitioners' legitimate expectation. Such whimsical action is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
8. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submits that an advertisement dated 10.07.2020 (Annexure-9) was floated by Agricultural Technology Management Agency, Simdega for appointment of ATM and BTM posts and in the final merit list dated 27.09.2021 (Annexure-10), the marks of the interview has been included and the candidates declared successful have been appointed who are working currently.
He further submits that the consensus allegedly reached on 22.04.2025 (Annexure-11) regarding BTM/ATM appointments was obtained under coercion and undue influence. Petitioner No. 5 avers that the agreement was forced upon him under duress exerted by law enforcement officers in the presence of the District President of JMM, Koderma. The involuntary nature of the consensus violates the fundamental rights of the Petitioner and renders the purported agreement legally void and unenforceable.
The said cancellation of the recruitment process, the respondents have floated an advertisement dated 23.04.2025 for appointment for the posts of ATM and BTM, the date of submission of application being 12.05.2025.
9. He lastly submits that the respondents' cancellation of the recruitment process for the posts of ATM and BTM is 8 2025:JHHC:18951 arbitrary, whimsical, and legally untenable. Such abrupt and unexplained cancellation undermines the legitimate expectations of the Petitioners and violates their fundamental right to be considered for appointment through a lawful and transparent process. The Respondents' reliance on outdated Resolutions dated 11.08.2014 and 19.08.2016, which conflict with the binding 2018 Guidelines issued by the Government of India mandating interviews, is misplaced and legally unsustainable.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State relying upon Para 12 to 15 of the counter affidavit has made the following submissions:
(a) The contractual appointment/recruitment process for the post of ATM and BTM in the ATMA Scheme was initiated in Koderma. The District Reservation Roster was updated and accordingly the Advertisement for Appointment was published in Daily newspapers on 01.06.2023 as per Departmental Letter No. 2427 dated 11.8.2014.
(b) The application was to be submitted through registered post or in person by 5:00 PM on 16.06.2023, a total of 52 applications were received for the posts. Under the order of District Agriculture Officer, scrutiny was done on 19.06.2023 under Memo No. 134/ATMA by constituted committee. Out of these, 07 applications were found suitable for the post of BTM and 45 applications for ATM and a week's time was given for the objections and objections were received by 12.09.2024 and a computer proficiency test held 05.10.2024 in which total candidates 07 candidates appeared for the ATM Post and 26 candidates appeared for the BTM post and computer proficiency test was published 10.12.2024 and interview of shortlisted candidates held on 18.12.2024 scheduled under the Chairmanship of Deputy 9 2025:JHHC:18951 Commissioner, Koderma and final list was published on the District website on 08.01.2025. Under this, one (01) candidate for BTM and Seven (07) candidates were selected for the post of ATM.
(c) In the meantime, the absent candidates during interview submitted the Departmental guidelines letter bearing No.3020 dated 19.08.2016, which contains a provision that no interview is required and the letter was presented before the Deputy Commissioner Koderma and after reviewing it, the proposal to cancel the related recruitment advertisement was approved accordingly this information was duly published in the newspapers and District website on 28.3.2025.
11. During course of hearing on 09.07.2025 following Order was passed:-
"The stand of the petitioner is that Annexure-B which is the Government resolution has stipulated the selection process for the post of contractual employment of ATM and BTM (Assistant Technology Manager and Block Technology Manager). However, a subsequent order has been issued by the concerned Secretary by way of corrigendum of the original resolution which has been issued in the name of Governor way back in 2014, by a letter dated 19.08.2016, which is against the settled proposition of law that the concerned Secretary has no jurisdiction to amend the original resolution which has been issued in the name of Governor.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that there might be some error and it might be possible that the said paragraph has not been written and in original record the Governor might have permitted the concerned Secretary to issue the corrigendum.
3. Having regard to the aforesaid submission and looking to the urgency involved in this case, learned counsel for the respondent is directed to produce the original record which can transpire as to whether the concerned cabinet has taken permission in original record in order to substantiate, as there was no flaw in issuance of corrigendum.
4. List this case on 11.07.2025 at 02:15 P.M. under the same heading."
12. Today, learned counsel for the State has admitted before this Court that before issuance of Annexure-D to the counter affidavit dated 19.08.2016 whereby the eligibility criteria for conducting interview have been omitted was by the Secretary and there was no cabinet approval. Thus, it is an admitted case that Annexure-B which was issued in accordance with law, which 10 2025:JHHC:18951 is a Government resolution, has stipulated the selection process for the post of contractual employment of ATM (Assistant Technology Manager) and BTM (Block Technology Manager); whereby one of the essential clauses was walk-in interview. However, the same has been suo motu omitted by the Secretary without any authority of law; as a result of which the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
13. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and discussions, following findings are arrived at by this Court as under:
I. When scheme is funded by the Central Government, State Government must follow the Central guidelines:
It is evident from the facts narrated hereinabove, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, with the objective of promoting holistic and scientific development of the agricultural sector, implemented the "Krishonnati Yojana" as an Umbrella Scheme from the year 2016-17. The "Support to State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms(ATMA) Scheme, 2018" envisages the establishment of Agricultural Technology Management Agencies (ATMAs) as district-level autonomous institutions responsible for the transfer of agricultural technologies and extension services.
The 2018 Guidelines operates as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme with a cost-sharing pattern of 60:40 between the Centre and General States, 90:10 for North- 11
2025:JHHC:18951 Eastern and Himalayan States, and 100% Central funding for Union Territories, with fund allocation based on block numbers, farm families, and manpower deployment.
The 2018 Guidelines also prescribe a transparent and merit-based contractual recruitment process for Assistant Technology Managers (ATM) and Block Technology Managers (BTM), requiring wide publicity, online applications, written tests or interviews, and prohibiting arbitrary appointments.
In the present case, the Respondent vide Press Release dated 28.03.2025, cancelled the entire selection process for the posts of Block Technology Manager (BTM) and Assistant Technology Manager (ATM) arbitrarily, citing Corrigendum No. 3020 dated 19.08.2016 and Clause 5 of Departmental Resolution dated 11.08.2014, which allegedly dispensed with the requirement of interviews for such appointments.
It further appears that the reasoning furnished in the Press Release dated 28.03.2025 is legally unsound, as it completely disregards the binding provisions of the 2018 Guidelines which specifically mandates the inclusion of an interview stage for the appointment of Assistant Technology Manager and Block Technology Manager under Paragraph 2.9 of the 2018 Guidelines. The circumvention of the guidelines is a violation of established legal framework, warranting intervention by this Court under Article 226 of 12 2025:JHHC:18951 the Constitution of India.
The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, in the case of "Dr. Devendra Pratap Singh and Ors. v. Union of India through Secy. Health and Family Welfare (2011 SCC OnLine All 1046)" was adjudicating on the implementation of the National Rural Health Mission Scheme of the centre. The Court was of the view that "the state is not entitled to move on its own way on account of agreement entered between the state and government of India. It is obligatory on the part of the state to enforce NRHM scheme in its letter and spirit keeping in view the operational guidelines."( Refer-Para-50) It was further observed in paragraph 58 that "the NRHM scheme and operational guidelines framed by the Government of India have got binding effect on the states. The state or its instrumentalities lacks the jurisdiction to take a decision against the NRHM scheme or its operational guidelines." Further, it was held that "the states shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union."
It was also held that "Any decision or policy taken by the state government in contravention of the NRHM scheme and its operational guidelines shall not be sustainable and may be set aside under judicial review by the court while exercising Article 226 of the Constitution." (Refer-Para-62) Therefore, in the present case the State 13 2025:JHHC:18951 Government does not have the jurisdictional authority to alter or breach the terms of the 2018 guidelines unilaterally. Accordingly, this arbitrary decision of the State deserves to be set aside.
II. Corrigendum brought in violation to the procedure as laid under Article 166 of the Constitution of India:
It is also evident in the present case the inherent violation of procedure in promulgation of corrigendum no. 3020 dated 19.08.2016. The corrigendum which is annexed as Annexure-D of the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondents, was only undersigned by the Secretary of the State Government with no details of the same being placed before the Hon'ble Governor of State.
It is further evident from records that the subject matter of the corrigendum being "amendment of service rules relating to posts to which appointments are made by the Government" is included in Schedule III of the Jharkhand Executive Rules, 2000.
As per Rule 10 of the said rules, "Subject to the orders of the Chief Minister under rule 15, all cases referred to in the Third Schedule to these rules shall be brought before the Council in accordance with the provisions of the rules contained in Part II". Rule 15 of the said rules stipulates that, "All cases referred to the Third Schedule through the Secretary to the council (Cabinet Secretariat) after consideration by the Minister-in-Charge with a view to 14 2025:JHHC:18951 obtaining his orders for circulation of the case or for bringing it up for consideration at a meeting of the Council under rule 6 or in case of extreme urgency the order of the Chief Minister shall be obtained for authorising action in anticipation of the approval of the Council."
As per Rule 17(2), "If the Ministers have accepted the recommendations contained in the memorandum for circulation or the date by which they were required to communicate their opinion has expired, the Secretary to the Council shall submit the case to the Chief Minister. If the Chief Minister accepts the recommendations and if he has no observations to make, he shall return the case to the Secretary to the Council who will pass it on to the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the department concerned who will thereafter take steps to issue the necessary orders." Lastly, as per Rule 20(7) "the Secretary to the Council shall attend all meetings of the Council and shall prepare a record of the decisions taken in each case with the approval of the Minister who presided at the meeting. He shall then forward a copy of such record to each of the Ministers including the Chief Minister and to the Governor."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. vs Kripalu Shankar and Ors. (1987) 3 SCC 34 has held in para 15 that Article 166(1) requires that formal executive actions of the State be expressed in the name of the Governor. Mere noting by officials or Ministers 15 2025:JHHC:18951 do not amount to such executive action. Clause (2) mandates authentication of such orders, while Clause (3) provides for rules governing government business. An executive decision becomes legally effective only when expressed in the Governor's name and duly authenticated as per Article 166(2).
Additionally, in the case of Jaipur Development Authority and Ors. vs Vijay Kumar Data and Anr. (2011) 12 SCC 94, the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court was that 'unless an order is expressed in name of President or Governor and is authenticated in manner prescribed by rules;
same cannot be treated as an order made on behalf of Government'. In Para 48 and 49 the Court observed that the letter issued by the Deputy Secretary (Administration), Urban Development Department to the Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority cannot be construed as a policy decision of the State Government. No material was placed either before the High Court or this Court evidencing approval by the State Government of the recommendations made by the Committee of Ministers, resulting in the issuance of a policy circular.
As a matter of fact by now it is well settled that all executive actions of the Union and State Governments must be taken in the name of the President or the Governor, as mandated by Articles 77(1) and 166(1) of the Constitution. Further, orders and instruments executed in 16 2025:JHHC:18951 such names must be duly authenticated in accordance with the rules framed under Articles 77(2) and 166(2), respectively.
In para 53 of the judgment rendered in Jaipur Development Authority (supra), the Court explicitly held that "it is thus clear that unless an order is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order made on behalf of the Government......"
Having regards to the settled proposition of law in this regard, the action of the Secretary and the corrigendum is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the new advertisement dated 28.03.2025 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
III. Change of the rule of game after commencement of the appointment process:
Another aspect of the case is that, the appointment process commences on the publication of the advertisement and once the appointment process has been so commenced, the rules governing the same cannot be arbitrarily changed to prejudice the competing candidates.
In the present case, the advertisement dated 01.06.2023 included interview was included as one of the components with a weightage of 20 marks. The final merit list prepared included the names of all the petitioners who were awarded interview marks.
17
2025:JHHC:18951 The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again has held that, when an advertisement expressly states that appointment shall be made in accordance with existing rule or order, subsequent amendment in existing rule or order, will not affect the selection process. The candidates participating in any recruitment process have the legitimate expectation that the process should be fair and non- arbitrary. Doctrine proscribing change of rules mid-way through recruitment process or after recruitment process, predicated on rules against arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
In this regard, reliance may be made to the case of N.T. Devin Katti and Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 157 and Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC
85. This Court is of the view that while the written examination constitutes a crucial component of the selection process for evaluating a candidate's academic proficiency and intellectual aptitude, the interview stage serves as an equally essential and non-negotiable mechanism to assess the candidate's overall intellectual calibre and personal attributes. The interview, therefore, forms an integral and indispensable part of a holistic assessment framework. The Hon'ble Apex Court, through various authoritative pronouncements, has consistently recognised importance of 18 2025:JHHC:18951 interviews. Reliance may be placed on Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. (2025) 2 SCC 1 and Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.(1981) 4 SCC 159.
IV. Arbitrary cancelation of the ATM/BTM recruitment procedure:
It is a well-settled principle of law that the cancellation of an entire selection process after its completion, particularly after the preparation of the final merit list, is impermissible unless there exist valid and bona fide reasons vitiating the entire process. In the present case, the Respondents seek to annul the concluded recruitment and initiate a fresh process, which effectively amounts to changing the "rules of the game after the game has been played" thereby depriving the Petitioners of their legitimate right to consideration for appointment. No cogent or substantiated grounds, such as allegations of illegality, fraud, or fundamental procedural infirmities, have been cited by the Respondents to warrant such cancellation.
Thus, The impugned action, being arbitrary, unreasonable, and devoid of legal justification, is unsustainable in law. Mere administrative or procedural deviations that do not materially affect the selection process cannot justify wholesale cancellation.
Further, the Respondents' reliance on non-
gazetted and obsolete State corrigendum, inconsistent with the binding 2018 Central Guidelines under the ATMA 19 2025:JHHC:18951 Scheme, cannot constitute a valid ground for cancelling a duly conducted selection process. Once the recruitment was carried out strictly as per the Central Guidelines, including the interview stage, the Respondents were estopped from retrospectively applying outdated norms. In absence of any demonstrated illegality or mala fides, the cancellation is manifestly arbitrary, violative of Article 14, and defeats the petitioners' legitimate expectation. Such whimsical action is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
The selection process could not be set aside or scrapped by the state government. Reliance in this regard may be placed to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharya and Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719.
Further, in the case of East Coast Railway and Anr. v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 678, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that appointment cannot be denied arbitrarily nor can selection test be cancelled without giving proper justification. If any such decision taken by the State is found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter by the Court.
As stated hereinabove, no rationale can be found in the decisions taken by the State Government in amending the conditions of the appointment process after the publication of the final merit list and the subsequent 20 2025:JHHC:18951 cancellation of the selection process. The action of the State government is hence in contravention to established legal principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and enshrined in the Constitution of India under Article 14, 16 and 21.
14. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions and the judicial pronouncements, the "Press Release dated 28.03.2025"
(Annexure-7), issued by the 5th Respondent whereby the entire recruitment process for appointment of Assistant Technology Manager (ATM) and Block Technology Manager (BTM) in the district of Koderma after having being conducted and which has been cancelled; is hereby, quashed and set aside.
Consequently, advertisement dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure-12), issued by Agricultural Technology Management Agency, Koderma; is also quashed.
The Respondents are further directed to appoint the Petitioners on the post of Assistant Technology Manager (ATM) and Block Technology Manager (BTM) respectively in the District of Koderma forthwith; as they have successfully participated in the selection process and have qualified as selected candidates having their names published in the final merit list dated 03.01.2025.
15. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, is also closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-
A.F.R. 21