State Cannot Arbitrarily Stop Recruitment After Preparing Eligibility List: Supreme Court Orders Appointment Of Left-Out Himachal Pradesh Medical Officers
The Court noted that ‘a right to appointment is distinct from a right to fair treatment’; and absence of vested right cannot dilute Article 14 protection in public employment.
The Supreme Court has held that while inclusion in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, the State cannot arbitrarily curtail a recruitment process midway without a bona fide and rational explanation. Applying this principle, the Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to issue fresh appointment orders to Medical Officer candidates who were part of a 2021 recruitment process and had approached the Court after being denied appointment despite being found eligible.
The Bench while passing an order in a batch of appeals concerning recruitment to the post of Medical Officer on contractual basis in the Health and Family Welfare Department, affirmed the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgment in substance, and modified the relief. It confined the benefit of the judgment only to those candidates from the list of 76 who were parties before the Court in the present batch of appeals. The State was directed to issue fresh appointment orders to such candidates within eight weeks, subject to verification of eligibility and completion of other formal requirements.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed, “The distinction, therefore, is between a right to appointment and a right to fair treatment. A candidate included in a list may not be able to demand appointment as a matter of course. However, such candidate is certainly entitled to insist that the discretion of the State be exercised in a fair, reasoned and non-arbitrary manner. The absence of a vested right to appointment cannot be equated with an absence of constitutional protection. The former concerns the final relief which may be claimed by a candidate. The latter concerns the standard by which State action must be judged”.
Anup Kumar Rattan, Advocate General, Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G., Senior Advocate Abhinav Mukerji appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia appeared for the respondent.
The dispute arose from a walk-in interview process initiated by the Himachal Pradesh government in November 2021. Although the recruitment notice did not specify the number of vacancies, the process was preceded by departmental communications referring to a larger requirement of Medical Officers.
Around 405 candidates appeared in the interviews held on December 07, 2021, after which the Selection Committees prepared a list of 76 eligible candidates. However, appointment letters were issued only to the first 43 candidates, leaving the remaining eligible candidates without appointment.
The State defended its decision by contending that only 24 vacancies were actually available at the relevant time and that appointments were extended to 43 candidates after accounting for anticipated vacancies. It also argued that subsequent decisions to fill additional posts could not be linked to the earlier recruitment exercise.
“The law, therefore, does not proceed on a rigid or one sided footing. It does not say that every candidate included in a list must necessarily be appointed. Equally, it does not say that the State may, after undertaking a recruitment process and preparing a list, stop the process without any reasonable explanation. The governing test is one of fairness, bona fides and non-arbitrariness”, the Bench said, after considering the relevant circumstances.
The Bench observed that “Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not confined only to cases of direct discrimination. It strikes equally at arbitrary State action. If the State treats similarly situated candidates differently, the distinction must rest on a rational basis. If the State stops a recruitment process midway, the reason must be bona fide and capable of being explained. Administrative expressions such as vacancy position, surplus staff, cadre adjustment or policy decision cannot by themselves immunise the action from constitutional scrutiny”.
Examining the record, the Court noted that the recruitment process had been initiated against a backdrop of a larger requirement, the notice itself did not restrict appointments to 43 posts, and 76 candidates had been found eligible by the Selection Committees. It further noted that within a short time of limiting appointments to 43 candidates, the State itself proceeded to approve filling 144 additional Medical Officer posts and later 300 more posts.
“The prevailing principle, therefore, is that the State’s discretion in matters of public employment is wide, but not unguided. Decisions relating to the number of posts to be filled, the assessment of vacancies, and the continuation or closure of a recruitment process ordinarily belong to the executive domain. Yet, when such decisions are questioned on the ground of arbitrariness, the State must be able to demonstrate a coherent, bona fide and non-discriminatory basis for its action. It is in the light of this legal position that the facts of the present case are required to be examined”, it further noted.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the State’s explanation for restricting appointments to only 43 candidates did not meet the constitutional requirement of fairness. It found that the State had failed to provide a coherent and convincing justification for treating similarly placed candidates differently.
The Court further clarified that the appointments would operate prospectively. No candidate would be entitled to back wages, retrospective seniority or monetary benefits for the earlier period merely on account of inclusion in the list, though salary already paid for services rendered pursuant to earlier High Court orders would not be recovered.
Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Aishwarya Thakur & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.7949-7950 Of 2026
Appearances:
Appellant: Anup Kumar Rattan, Advocate General, Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G., Ketan Paul, AOR, Puneet Rajta, Ujala Singh, Gunita Tandon, Prachet Sharma, Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv., Purnima Krishna, AOR, Bihu Sharma, Archita Nigam, Khushboo Hora, Advocates.
Respondent: Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Lagan Kaur Sidhu, Amit Verma, AOR, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Garima Bajaj, AOR, Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Deveshi Chand, Gaurav Kumar, Vinod Sharma, AOR, Reena Devi, Dr Rajesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Thalour, Ketan Paul, AOR, Advocates.