Allahabad High Court: Decision To Withdraw Appointment Offer Entails Severe Civil Consequences; Impacts Livelihood & Career
The Allahabad High Court set aside the impugned order issued by the Registrar of Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University.
The Allahabad High Court has remarked that the decision to withdraw an appointment offer entails severe civil consequences for candidates, impacting their livelihood and career.
The Court set aside the impugned order issued by the Registrar of Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow along with resolution of the Board of Management, which denied the appointment of the Petitoner, even after his placement in the selection list.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan held, “The actions of the opposite parties constitute a clear breach of a concluded contract entered into with the petitioners. A valid offer was made by the opposite parties vide Memorandum/Offer letter dated 08.06.2018. The petitioners duly received and unequivocally accepted the offer vide communication dated 19.06.2018 and 13.06.2018. Under Sections 2 (b), 4 and 7 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, upon the communication of unconditional acceptance through the acceptance letter, the proposal became a promise, resulting in a binding contract between the petitioners and the opposite parties. The opposite parties refusal to permit joining and the subsequent withdrawal order dated 31.10.2018 constitute a repudiation and breach of its contractual obligation to employ the petitioners.”
Advocate Shalabh Singh appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate V.K. Singh represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The core issue revolved around the challenge to the denial of appointment for the Petitioners, despite an initial offer of appointment. The Petitioners contested the impugned Order issued by the Registrar of Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University and related resolutions of the Board of Management.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court explained, “Although it is true that the University has discretion in administrative matters. However, for a public body such as "State" under Article 12 of the Indian constitution, this discretion is not absolute. It must be exercised in a reasonable, fair and in a non-arbitrary manner in accordance to law and which also includes principles of natural justice where applicable. The purpose of hearing the candidate is to allow him to potentially explain why the alleged flaw shouldn't invalidate their specific selection, especially after approval and offer. The failure to do so renders the decision unfair and violative of the principles of natural justice.”
“The formal offer of appointment dated 08.06.2018, issued after a full selection process culminating in BOM approval and duly accepted by the petitioners, created a legitimate expectation that they would be appointed,” the Bench noted. It further remarked, "The decision to withdraw the appointment offer entails severe civil consequences for the petitioners, impacting their livelihood and career."
“Though the petitioners have got no absolute right of appointment in these circumstances, but their expectation cannot be defeated arbitrarily or without adhering to principles of fairness and reasonableness,” the Court further remarked.
The Bench explained, “Besides, the petitioners acted in a good faith manner appeared before the Selection Committee and succeeded in such selection. The offer of appointment of the petitioners has been withdrawn on account of fault on the part of the Competent Authorities who had constituted the committee, which as per the opposite parties, was not proper committee and this fact was not known to the petitioners. If the committee was wrongly formed from the very beginning, then the question arises as to why did the Board of Management approve such committee on 30.01.2018 and issued offer of appointment on 08.06.2018. The government body should not approve something one day and cancel it the next day based on reason that existed all along, unless something new and significant came up.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Therefore, in view of what has been considered above, I hereby set aside/ quash the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 issued by the Registrar of Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow along with resolution of the Board of Management dated 31.10.2018 and the confirmation order of the Board of Management dated 20.08.2019, as mentioned in the impugned order, so far as it relates to the petitioners of both the aforesaid writ petitions.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Anand Singh Aswal v. UOI & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:34784)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Shalabh Singh, Gaurav Kaushik and Navneet Awasthi
Respondents: Advocates V.K.Singh and S M Singh Royekwar