Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

i) Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned advertisement notice no. KVIB/01 of 2016 dated 08.10.2016 in so far as it relates to the selection of Law Officer in J&K Khadi and Village Industries Board.
ii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to complete the selection process for selection/appointment of Law Officer in the respondent institute (KVIB) initiated vide advertisement notice no. KVIB/01 of 2013 and no. KVIB/02 of 2013 both dated 26.04.2013.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the advertisement notices issued in the year 2013 were proceeded to the extent of written examination, thereafter the respondents ought to have completed the process of interview and selection. It is stated that the respondents abandoned it only due to some extraneous reason, more particularly the counsel pleads that the Vice Chairman was appointed by the government to the Board and he wanted the earlier selection to be annulled and fresh selection has been initiated at his behest and therefore it is a case of interference by a political appointee to scuttle the earlier selection process. It is stated that there was no reason for the respondents to have cancelled the 2013 notices and proceed with the fresh one in the year 2016. It is stated that the action of the respondents smacks of mala fide and arbitrariness.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court passed in the case "State of A.P. and others versus D. Dastagiri and others"

(2003) 5 SCC 373. Para 4 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 915/2000, in paragraph 16 it is stated that the process of selection was cancelled at the last stage, i.e., before publishing the list of selected candidates on the sole ground that the State Government wanted to introduce prohibitor and obviously the Government felt that there was no need of Excise Constables during imposition of prohibition in the State. There is serious dispute as to the completion of selection process. According to the appellants, the selection process was not complete. No record has been placed before us to show that the selection process was complete, but, it is not disputed that the select list was not published. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, referred above, the respondents themselves had admitted that the selection process was cancelled at the last stage. In the absence of publication of select list, we are inclined to think that the selection process was not complete. Be that as it may, even if the selection process was complete and assuming that only select list was remained to be published, that does not advance the case of the respondents for the simple reason that even the candidates who are selected and whose names find place in the select list, do not get vested right to claim appointment based on the select list. It was open to the State Government to take a policy decision either to have prohibition or not to have prohibition in the State. Certainly, the Government had right to take a policy decision. If pursuant to a policy decision taken to impose prohibition in the State there was no requirement for the recruitment of Constables in the Excise Department, nobody can insist that they must appoint the candidates as Excise Constables. It is not the case of the respondent that there was any malafide on the part of the appellants in refusing the appointment to the respondents after the selection process was complete. The only claim was that the action of the appellants, in not appointing the respondents as Excise Constables, was arbitrary. In the light of the facts that we have stated above, when it was open to the Government to take a policy decision, we fail to understand as to how the respondents can dub the action of the Government as arbitrary, particularly, when they did not have any right as such to claim appointments. In the absence of selection and publication of select list, mere concession or submission made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant-State cannot improve the case of the respondents. Similarly, such a submission cannot confer right on the respondents, which they otherwise did not have.

12.The learned counsel emphasizes that in this case the recruitment process had not been concluded because it was at the stage of written test. No interview was conducted nor any selection list was issued. Therefore, respondents were well within their right to cancel the earlier advertisement notices and issue a fresh one. Furthermore in the case of State of AP and others versus D. Dastagiri and others, supra, in a case of appointment to the post of Excise Constable, government in order to introduce prohibition cancelled the selection process at the last stage and in this aspect of the matter the Supreme Court held that the process was not completed and the select list has not been published and the selection process cancelled and therefore no right accrues to the individual candidates. The Supreme Court held that the persons whose names find place in the selection list also do not get vested right to get appointment based on the selection list.