Background

The petition arose from a recruitment exercise conducted in 2016 by the Ministry of Defence for the post of Civilian Assistant Security Officer (CASO). The selection process was completed and the petitioner, retired Subedar Major Ashok Kumar Verma, secured the highest marks in the merit list. Despite his top ranking, no appointment order was issued because the file remained pending for several months due to uncertainty regarding the competent authority required to approve the Selection Committee’s recommendations.

In February 2019 the Joint Secretary (Army) issued a direction that the recruitment process be restarted afresh to ensure transparency and equal opportunity. Consequently the original recruitment exercise was cancelled and a fresh notification was issued. The petitioner challenged this cancellation before the Delhi High Court, contending that he had developed a legitimate expectation of appointment after being selected and that he should not suffer because of administrative lapses on the part of the Ministry.

Parties’ Contentions

The petitioner argued that inclusion in a select list creates a legitimate expectation of appointment which cannot be defeated by mere administrative delay or procedural uncertainty. He submitted that the Ministry’s decision to cancel the process and initiate a fresh recruitment amounted to a violation of his legitimate expectation and caused him undue hardship.

The respondents, representing the Ministry of Defence, maintained that the cancellation was based on bona fide administrative considerations, namely the delay in processing the file and the lack of clarity about the approving authority. They asserted that the State retains the discretion to cancel a recruitment process when such cancellation is not arbitrary or tainted by mala fide, and that no vested right accrues to a candidate merely by topping a merit list in the absence of a formal appointment order.

Court’s Reasoning

A division bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla examined the rival submissions. The Court began by reiterating the settled principle that inclusion in a select list does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment. It observed that a legitimate expectation arises only when there is a clear promise or an established practice, and mere placement in a merit list does not satisfy that threshold.

The bench then turned to the question of whether the Ministry’s decision to cancel the recruitment process suffered from arbitrariness or mala fide. It noted that the cancellation was prompted by administrative concerns such as the prolonged delay in finalising the file and the uncertainty over the competent authority required to endorse the Selection Committee’s recommendations. The Court found no indication of irregularity, bias or bad faith in the decision.

Relying on precedent, the Court cited Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) which held that the State may withdraw a selection process for valid administrative reasons. It also referred to Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dr. Vinay Kumar (2022) where the Court affirmed that a candidate’s placement in a select list does not create a vested right absent a formal appointment. Additionally, the Court drew guidance from State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha (2025) which recognised the State’s discretion to cancel recruitment processes when done bona fide and without arbitrariness.

The Court expressed sympathy for the petitioner’s situation, acknowledging that it is unfortunate that a candidate who had undergone the rigours of selection could not be appointed due to a subsequent administrative decision. However, it emphasised that such hardship cannot override the legal position that no enforceable right accrues merely from participation or placement in a select list when the competent authority, for valid and bona fide reasons, decides to cancel the process and initiate it afresh.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Subedar Major Ashok Kumar Verma (Retd) and upheld the Ministry of Defence’s decision to cancel the 2016 recruitment process for the post of Civilian Assistant Security Officer. The judgment reinforces the principle that a candidate’s top ranking in a merit list does not create a vested right to appointment and that the State may, for bona fide administrative reasons, cancel a recruitment process provided the decision is not arbitrary or motivated by mala fide.