The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirms that no indefeasible right to appointment exists for candidates merely because they are selected, especially when the recruitment process is cancelled for bona fide reasons. Upholding Supreme Court precedent, the judgment clarifies that such cancellation is valid if free from arbitrariness, reinforcing binding authority for service law matters concerning public employment recruitment.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/754/2025 of DAULAT RAM SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010398022025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (concurred) |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Divisional Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within jurisdiction; follows Supreme Court precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court in State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha (2025); applies Surinder Singh (1997) and Rajkishore Nanda (2010) |
| Type of Law | Service/Administrative Law – Public Employment Recruitment |
| Questions of Law | Whether selection to a post in a recruitment process confers a vested or indefeasible right to appointment when the process is later cancelled on grounds of irregularities. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible or vested right to appointment merely by being selected, particularly where the selection process is found to be tainted by irregularities proven through inquiry. The power of the State to cancel recruitment must be exercised bona fide, with justifiable reasons, and free from arbitrariness or malafide. The decision of the Superintendent of Police, affirmed by superior authorities after inquiry, was found valid and justifiable. The precedent from State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, as well as Surinder Singh and Rajkishore Nanda, was applied to affirm that the interest of public employment requires sanctity and transparency in the recruitment process. The Court found no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge’s order, and thus, no cause for interference. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha (2025); Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (1997(8) SCC 488); State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda (2010(6) SCC 777) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court judgments on public employment, vested rights, arbitrariness, administrative discretion |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners participated in and were selected in the recruitment for Constable (Driver) in Gariyaband. Complaints about irregularities led to an inquiry, which found allegations proved. The Superintendent of Police, with Inspector General’s approval, cancelled recruitment. The petition challenging cancellation was dismissed by Single Judge, leading to this intra-court appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; applies as binding precedent on Division Bench/Singles benches within jurisdiction. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India and for legal argument before the Supreme Court. |
| Follows | State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha (2025); Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1997); State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda (2010) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and applies the latest Supreme Court precedent (State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, 2025) on the non-existence of an indefeasible or vested right to appointment upon selection alone.
- Clarifies that notwithstanding applicable recruitment rules, proven irregularities in the process empower the State to cancel selection, so long as the action is bona fide and non-arbitrary.
- Recognizes the right of unsuccessful candidates to challenge such cancellations, but only if the decision is tainted by arbitrariness or malafide — mere selection is insufficient to claim a right to appointment.
- Affirms strict judicial scrutiny of recruitment cancellations to ensure administrative action is taken in good faith and supported by inquiry and justifiable grounds.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first recited the facts: complaints of irregularities in the recruitment of Constable (Drivers) led to an inquiry, which found misconduct.
- Following the inquiry, the Superintendent of Police cancelled the process, later affirmed by the Inspector General.
- The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha (2025), which crystalizes the doctrine that inclusion in a select list does not confer a right to appointment absent arbitrariness in the State’s action.
- The Division Bench further cited Surinder Singh and Rajkishore Nanda to reinforce the principle that, where irregularities and procedural violations are established, the competent authority is empowered and, in fact, obligated to cancel the process to maintain public trust.
- The arguments regarding the Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constable (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007, were dismissed—not because the rules were violated, but because State’s higher-duty to transparency prevails in light of proven irregularities.
- The Limited scope of intra-court appeal was noted — interference lies only where the order of the Single Judge is perverse, illegal, or a jurisdictional error; none were found.
- The Court concluded that the challenged orders cancelling recruitment were valid and not arbitrary or malafide.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Petitioners were duly selected in the recruitment process for Constable (Driver); their selection was cancelled without assigning reasons.
- Cancellation was contrary to the Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constable (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007.
- Single Judge erred in dismissing their petition; sought quashing of cancellation orders.
Respondent (State):
- Recruitment was cancelled after multiple complaints regarding selection irregularities.
- An inquiry found the allegations proved; competent authority acted lawfully.
- Cited Supreme Court judgments (Surinder Singh, Rajkishore Nanda) that empower cancellation in such circumstances.
Factual Background
The petitioners participated in a recruitment process for Constable (Driver) conducted in District Gariyaband pursuant to a 2017 advertisement. They cleared all required tests and were selected. Following complaints alleging irregularities in the trade skill test, a committee was constituted which found the alleged misconduct proved. The Superintendent of Police, with approval from the Inspector General, cancelled the entire recruitment. The petitioners’ challenge before the Single Judge was dismissed, resulting in the present intra-court appeal.
Statutory Analysis
The Division Bench considered the Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constable (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007, as cited by the petitioners, but emphasized that adherence to recruitment rules does not override the State’s responsibility to ensure transparency and propriety. The judgment specifically adopts the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence governing Article 16 of the Constitution and the general doctrine that inclusion in a select list does not confer a vested or indefeasible right to appointment, particularly when the process is legally and bona fide cancelled due to proven irregularities.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion was recorded; both justices agreed with the reasoning and disposal.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines were spelt out in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing Supreme Court law and applies it as binding precedent within the jurisdiction.