Mere Exoneration From Allegations Of Malpractice Doesn’t Confer Vested Right To Appointment: Uttarakhand High Court
The Petitions before the Uttarakhand High Court were filed by the candidates whose representations were rejected by the Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
While dismissing the petitions of the candidates whose appointment to the post of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari was cancelled, the Uttarakhand High Court has held that mere exoneration from allegations of malpractice does not confer any vested right to appointment.
The Petition was filed by the candidates whose representations were rejected by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
The Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit held, “Mere exoneration from allegations of malpractice does not confer any vested right to appointment. The final inquiry report may establish that the petitioners were not involved in any irregularity, but it neither revives the cancelled recruitment process nor creates a right in their favour to seek appointment against vacancies arising under subsequent recruitment advertisement. The vacancies advertised subsequently constitute separate recruitment processes governed by independent selection procedures.”
Advocate Vivek Kathait represented the Petitioner while Deputy Advocate General K.N. Joshi represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to 196 posts of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari. The petitioners participated in the selection process, appeared in the written examination and were declared successful. Subsequently, complaints regarding the manipulation of OMR answer sheets led to the constitution of an inquiry committee by the State Government. On the basis of the interim inquiry report, the Commission cancelled the entire selection process. The said cancellation was challenged, and the High Court directed holding a restricted re-examination for candidates who had appeared in the original examination.A re-examination was conducted, and a fresh merit list was prepared.
According to the petitioners, the final inquiry report was based on a forensic examination of OMR sheets, which identified candidates whose answer sheets were found tainted, whereas the petitioners were not found to be involved in any irregularity. Claiming that they stood exonerated by the inquiry, the petitioners asserted a right to be considered for appointment. The Commission issued a fresh advertisement for recruitment to the post of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari. The Petitioners, seeking consideration of their candidature against the available vacancies, approached the High Court by filing WPSS No.1753 of 202 which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioners' claim in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted representations, which came to be rejected by the Commission. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the High Court with the Writ Petition.
Reasoning
The Bench first dealt with the principal contention of the petitioners that the final inquiry report exonerated them from all allegations of malpractice and, therefore, they were entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari against the available vacancies. The Bench was of the view that once the original selection stood cancelled and a fresh selection process was undertaken in terms of the directions of the Court, the rights of all candidates became subject to the outcome thereof.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the order passed in WPSS No. 1753 of 2020 merely required consideration of the petitioners' representations. Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered the matter and rejected the claim on the ground that the recruitment process had attained finality after the re-examination and that the petitioners were not included in the final select list. As per the Bench, the said conclusion could not be said to be arbitrary or illegal.
Holding that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners regarding segregation of tainted and untainted candidates did not advance their case, the Bench stated, “The issue in the present matter is not whether the petitioners were involved in malpractice, but whether such exoneration entitles them to appointment despite their non-selection in the recruitment process which ultimately attained finality. In the opinion of this Court, it does not.”
Finding no ground for interference with the Office Memorandum, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Madhu Bala v. State of Uttarakhand and others (Neutral Citation: 2026:UHC:4896)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Vivek Kathait
Respondent: Deputy Advocate General K.N. Joshi, Advocate Shailendra Nauriyal