Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The law, therefore, is well settled that mere inclusion in the select list does not confer upon the candidates included therein an indefeasible right to appointment, but that is only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is the obligation of the State to act fairly. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce. The observations made in Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 573, may profitably be adverted to. In that case, the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission was sent for approval of the Government. The list was kept pending by the Government on being prima facia satisfied with some of the complaints received against the selection process. Subsequently, the State Government asked for the list of 20 candidates and appointed them. Names of rest of the 7 candidates in the list were not approved. It was held that the Government has no absolute discretion in the matter; it must act fairly; it cannot pick and choose or approve a part of it and reject the other part and must record reasons for disapproval of one set of candidates and approval of other candidates. When selection list is sent in accordance with the requisition of the Government, it must accord its sanction irrespective of the number ot vacancies. The Government's action in rejecting a part of the list was found to be unsustainable. The most striking observation in Ashs Raul's case (supra), is that "the Government cannot quietly and without good and valid reasons nullity the whole exercise and tell the candidates when they complain that they have no legal right to appointment. No Government can adopt such a stand with any justification today." Every in K.S. Gandhi's case (supra), in which the order of cancellation of result of account of mass copying was cancelled, the Supreme Court held that if the order cancelling the examination came to be passed, the record should indicate the reason though the order may not contain reasons. Every candidate who has applied for a particular post in pursuance of the advertisement and who has gone through the rigour of the entire process of selection, in my view, is entitled to have a legitimate expectation for being considered for appointment, may be that he is ultimately not appointed. Appointment on a post in one thing while consideration for appointment is another. Both the things cannot be mixed up and the confusion, if any, in the mind of all and sundry, must be clear with reference to these two aspects of the matter, which are quite separate and distinct. The order of cancellation of the recruitment process cannot be attached with that much of sanctity as it may render it inviolable or beyond the pale of scrutiny. The law is that if an order has been passed to set at naught the entire selection process, it has to conform to the test of reasonableness and fairness. The order should be passed bonafide and must be passed on some concrete and tangible material and certainly it cannot be the outcome of an arbitrary act imbued with subjectively.