Administrative Necessity & Public Interest Justify De Novo Recruitment, Where Earlier Process Becomes Stale Or Inconclusive: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The petitioner had filed the petition seeking quashing of the advertisement whereby the respondents had invited fresh applications for appointment to the post of Member, Punjab State Human Rights Commission (PSHRC), as the duly constituted Selection Committee had already recommended the name of the petitioner for the said post in pursuance of an advertisement.

The Single Bench of Justice N.S. Shekhawat held, “In the end now, this Court can also not overlook the fact that the posts of public importance cannot remain unfilled for an indefinite duration, particularly, where the earlier process had not culminated in lawful appointment and a substantial period of time had elapsed. The administrative necessity and public interest justify the de novo recruitment, where earlier process becomes stale or inconclusive.”

Advocate Naveen Bhardwaj represented the Petitioner while Addl. Advocate General Animesh Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Governor had invited applications for the post of Member (Non-Judicial) in PSHRC. The petitioner submitted his application form. The name of the petitioner was recommended for the appointment of the Member (Non-Judicial). However, a letter was issued by the Under Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat, Punjab, to the Special Chief Secretary, noting that the same was being returned. Noticing the said development, the respondents concluded that the matter had not fructified, the process of the appointment of a Member (Non-Judicial) in PSHRC may be initiated de novo. The main grievance of the petitioner arose from the issuance of a fresh advertisement for the post of Member (Non-Judicial) as the petitioner's name had been recommended by the Committee to the Governor, who was the competent authority as per the statutory provisions, who, apparently, was designated as the Appointing Authority.

Reasoning

Considering that the Governor had returned the file and the candidature of the petitioner was virtually rejected, the Bench noted that the failure to challenge the foundational decision was fatal and no substantive relief could be granted in the absence of a challenge to the operative administrative decision, which formed the basis of a subsequent action. “A fresh advertisement issued pursuant to the competent authority's directions cannot be impugned indirectly, especially when the principal decision remains unchallenged”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that the petition suffered from a defective and incomplete prayer and was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was noted that the advertisement in question, following the lapse of time and administrative reconsideration, squarely fell within the executive domain. “In fact, under the governing statutory framework, the Governor alone was the competent appointing authority and any recommendation made by the Selection Committee, irrespective of its stature or composition, is merely recommendatory in nature and does not culminate in appointment, unless approved and notified by the competent authority”, it stated.

The Bench also reaffirmed that mere inclusion in a select list or recommendation for appointment does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment. The Bench noticed that the petitioner had not laid any substantive challenge to the decision of the competent authority, i.e., the Governor, and he could not be permitted to indirectly assail the consequential steps taken in furtherance thereof. “Still further, the employer always retains the discretion to abandon or reinitiate any recruitment provided, such decision is not vitiated in arbitrariness or perversity”, it added.

The Bench found that the matter remained pending for almost 3 years and the initiation of a fresh recruitment process, after the passage of considerable time, constituted a legitimate administrative response aimed at ensuring efficacy in public administration. Even no arbitrariness, discrimination or malafide was pleaded or proved by the petitioner. “The administrative necessity and public interest justify the de novo recruitment, where earlier process becomes stale or inconclusive”, it held.

Thus, finding no merit in the Petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Birendra Singh Rawat State of Punjab and another (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:179779)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Naveen Bhardwaj, Kishore Bhardwaj, Nishtha

Respondent: Addl. Advocate General Animesh Sharma

Click here to read/download Order