State Cannot Abandon Ongoing Recruitment Process Without Proper Reasons And Justification: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Court found that the decision to cancel the recruitment relied on an unexplained claim of more than one lakh applications, while a subsequent official communication showed 55,335 applications for 448 posts.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that authorities may abandon a recruitment process, but only upon providing proper reasons and a legally sustainable justification.
Finding the cancellation of an ongoing Government Medical College recruitment arbitrary, the Court directed the authorities to resume the process from the stage at which it was discontinued and complete it within three months.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by candidates challenging an April 2025 General Body decision cancelling the advertisements issued for Class III and Class IV posts at Government Medical College, Ambikapur, and proposing fresh recruitment through the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, or VYAPAM.
A Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed: “It is settled that mere participation in the selection process does not give any indefeasible right to a candidate to get appointed and while the authorities have the right to abandon the selection process, yet the same can be done by giving proper reasons and justification and not arbitrarily.”
Advocate Pawan Shrivastava appeared for the petitioners, while Government Advocate Suyashdhar Badgaiya appeared for the State authorities.
Background
The Government Medical College issued recruitment advertisements in July 2022, followed by amended advertisements in 2023. The petitioners participated in the selection and submitted that a merit list had been prepared and candidates were called for document verification scheduled for August 23, 2023.
The State stated that the document-verification schedule was cancelled on August 21, 2023, for unavoidable reasons. In April 2025, the College’s General Body decided to cancel the institutional recruitment and undertake a fresh selection through VYAPAM.
The General Body minutes stated that more than one lakh applications had been received and that processing them would require considerable time. However, a June 2025 communication from the Dean showed 10,374 applications for 63 Class III posts and 44,961 applications for 385 Class IV posts, totalling 55,335 applications for 448 vacancies.
The petitioners clarified that they were not asserting an automatic right to appointment. They contended that the substantially progressed recruitment could not be abandoned on a factual premise unsupported by the respondents’ own records.
The State argued that participation or inclusion in a merit list did not create an indefeasible right to appointment. It maintained that the decision to use VYAPAM was taken in the larger administrative and institutional interest and was not motivated by mala fides, favouritism or discrimination.
Court’s Observations
No Right To Appointment Does Not Permit Arbitrary Cancellation
The Court reiterated that participation in recruitment, or even inclusion in a select list, does not ordinarily confer an indefeasible right to appointment. However, it held that the absence of such a right does not give the State unrestricted discretion to abandon recruitment.
The Bench observed: “The absence of such a right cannot be understood to confer upon the State an unrestricted discretion to abandon a recruitment process without a rational and legally sustainable justification. The exercise of administrative power remains subject to the constitutional mandate of fairness, equality and non-arbitrariness embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court relied on East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao (2010), Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025). It stated that a decision not to fill vacancies or continue a selection remains open to judicial review for arbitrariness.
Application Figures Required Reconciliation
The Court held that the number of applications and the time allegedly required to process them were expressly relied upon while cancelling the recruitment. Their factual accuracy was therefore material.
The Bench acknowledged that the Dean’s communication postdated the General Body meeting and could not conclusively establish the number of applications available when the decision was taken. It also declined to infer that the figure in the minutes had been deliberately misstated.
The Court nevertheless observed: “The respondents have not satisfactorily demonstrated that the figure of more than one lakh included applications relating to additional posts, other recruitment exercises, a different period or any other identifiable category not reflected in the post-wise statement. In the absence of such reconciliation, the factual premise recorded in the minutes remains materially unexplained.”
The Bench added that when an official document raises a substantial question about a factual circumstance relied upon to discontinue recruitment, the public authority must demonstrate that circumstance’s relevance and factual basis.
Advanced Stage Required Proportionate Reasons
The Court noted that the recruitment had moved beyond the initial stages of advertising vacancies and receiving applications. A merit list had allegedly been prepared, and document verification had been scheduled before its cancellation.
The Court clarified that these developments neither made the recruitment legally irreversible nor conferred an automatic right to appointment. However, they were relevant when assessing whether the reasons for cancellation were proportionate to its consequences.
The Bench held: “Where a selection process has progressed substantially, the decision to abandon it must be supported by reasons proportionate to the consequences of discontinuing the process and must remain consistent with the applicable recruitment rules.”
The Court accepted that recruitment through VYAPAM could, in an appropriate case, be supported by considerations of uniformity, transparency or administrative efficiency. However, the availability of that alternative mechanism did not establish why the existing process had to be cancelled.
Administrative Convenience Did Not Justify Abandonment
The Court found no identified illegality or procedural defect in the earlier selection. It also found no satisfactory material showing that the number of applications made completion of the existing process impracticable.
The Bench observed: “The mere desirability of conducting recruitment through VYAPAM does not, by itself, justify abandoning an ongoing selection process. The respondents were required to demonstrate why the existing process could not reasonably be completed and why its cancellation was necessary to achieve the stated administrative objective.”
Considering the unexplained discrepancy in the application figures, the absence of a satisfactory reason for not completing the earlier process and its advanced stage, the Court held that the cancellation violated the requirements of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the General Body’s April 23, 2025 decision cancelling the 2022 advertisements and discontinuing the recruitment, along with the consequential communication dated June 19, 2025.
The Court directed the respondents to resume recruitment from the stage at which it was discontinued and complete the process within three months. It ordered verification of eligibility and documents, determination of comparative merit and issuance of appointment orders to candidates found eligible and entitled under the applicable rules.
Cause Title: Aditya Saini and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:45524)