Recruitment Process Cannot Be Scrapped Solely Over Non-Issuance Of EOI While Engaging Exam-Conducting Agency: J&K&L High Court

The Court further held that such a ground, in the absence of any substantive defect affecting the fairness or integrity of the selection process, cannot constitute a cogent basis for cancellation.

The Court was hearing intra-court appeals filed by the Union Territory of J&K challenging a judgment which had quashed the cancellation of recruitment for the posts of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers conducted by JAKEDA.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed: “The mere fact that the agency was hired without providing other entities an opportunity to participate, while a procedural omission, can hardly be considered a 'cogent' ground for cancelling a selection process that has reached an advanced stage”.

The recruitment process was initiated through advertisement notices issued in 2017 for filling posts of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers in the J&K Energy Development Agency (JAKEDA). A private agency was engaged, with approval from the competent authority, to conduct the entire recruitment process, including examinations and preparation of merit lists.

Subsequently, the recruitment process was cancelled because the agency had been engaged without issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) or Expression of Interest (EOI), thereby denying other agencies an opportunity to participate.

The Writ Court quashed the cancellation order and directed completion of the recruitment process. Aggrieved, the Union Territory preferred appeals contending that the cancellation was justified due to procedural irregularity and changes in reservation policy following the Reorganisation Act, 2019.

The Division Bench of the High Court, while accepting the contention that mere participation in a recruitment process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, however, emphasised that the State cannot exercise its power to cancel recruitment arbitrarily.

Relying on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) and East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao (2010), the Court held that while the State has discretion, such discretion must be exercised on cogent and bona fide grounds.

The Court examined the sole ground for cancellation and found that it was based only on the non-issuance of RFP/EOI while engaging the agency. The Court further noted that there were no allegations that the agency lacked competence or indulged in malpractice during the conduct of examinations.

It was accordingly held that the mere fact that the agency was hired without providing other entities an opportunity to participate can hardly be considered a 'cogent' ground for cancelling a selection process that has reached an advanced stage,

The Court further held that the reason assigned for cancellation lacked substance and that “in the absence of such substantive grounds… the cause projected for cancellation… and is illusory in nature,” thereby rejecting the justification offered by the appellants.

The State had further contended that following the enactment of the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, a fresh reservation roster was issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir incorporating new categories, and in light of that, the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable.

The Court rejected the reliance placed on the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 and the revised reservation roster, noting that such grounds were not part of the original cancellation order.

It held that the validity of an administrative order must be tested on the reasons stated therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh grounds at a later stage, relying on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978).

“We note that this ground was never cited as a basis for the original cancellation order, … it is a settled principle of law that the validity of an executive order must be judged on the reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh grounds in the memo of appeal or oral submissions, …therefore, the appellants cannot utilize the Reorganisation Act, 2019, as a shield to justify an act that had already culminated in the issuance of the cancellation order on entirely different grounds”, the Court remarked.

Consequently, the High Court found no merit in the appeals and upheld the judgment of the Writ Court directing completion of the recruitment process.

Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed, affirming that the cancellation of the recruitment process was unjustified.

Case Title: UT of J&K v. Sameer Ahmad Khan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Appearances

For the Appellants: Dy. AG Bikramdeep Singh, Sr. AAG Monika Kohli, Advocate Saghira Jaffar

For the Respondents: Abhinav Sharma, Senior Advocate with Advocates Abhirash Sharma, Mian Tufail, M. Saleem Parray

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment