Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Mr. P.R. Barman, learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in not appointing the petitioners in terms of the select list and that no reason, much less valid reason, has been furnished by the respondents for cancelling the offer of appointment made to them. According to the learned Counsel, it is true that the persons in the select list have no indefeasible right to appointment, but at the same time, since such select list was made through a recruitment process in accordance with law, the petitioners can not be denied of appointment arbitrarily or without justifiable ground and that the ground shown by the respondents for cancelling of the offers of appointment made to the petitioners was no ground at all. By cancelling the offer of appointment made to the petitioners without any rhyme or reason, the respondents have reduced the recruitment process to a mockery. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that once the vacant posts have been increased to 848 posts during the recruitment process in question, the respondents ought to have filled up those vacancies and if these increased vacancies were filled up, all the petitioners would have been accommodated to the posts. He, however, contends that even though it is the prerogative of the respondents not to fill up all the vacancies notified for recruitment, but if they choose not to fill up all such posts, it must be for bona fide reason. In other words, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the absence of bona fide reason, the respondents cannot de-notify these vacant posts at their whims or caprices. In support of his various contention, learned Counsel for the 'petitioners placed strong reliance upon the following decisions:

12. In the instant case also, as against the increased vacancies of 848 posts, select list was prepared by the Recruitment Board on the requisition of the respondents. Only 425 names in the select list came to be approved by the respondents for the simple reason that a mistake had crept in due to the inclusion of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from the open market. The number of those Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates are only 53. This was the reason, which apparently prompted the respondents to ignore the names of the candidates in the select list beyond 425. As noted earlier, this cannot be a valid ground for not giving appointment to the petitioners against whom there is not even a whisper of allegation concerning irregularities or illegalities in the selection process. It is the obligation of the Government to act fairly and not arbitrarily and not to nullify, without valid reason, the whole exercise of the selection process and tell the candidates when they complain that they have no legal rights to appointment. No Government in a State professing to be under the rule of law can adopt such course of action with justification. The irregularities or illegalities arising out of selection of 53 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates cannot possibly set at naught the entire appointment process. This, without anything more, cannot be a ground for not filling up the entire vacancies requisitioned for recruitment by the Recruitment Board. Inevitably, I hold that the respondents have no justifiable ground for cancelling the selection of the petitioners.