State Can't Arbitrarily Scrap Near-Complete Recruitment, Constitutional Courts Can Intervene If Decision Lacks Rationality: J&K&L High Court

The Court underscored that Constitutional Courts, in exercise of judicial review, are empowered to scrutinize such decisions and grant appropriate relief if the action is found to be arbitrary or lacking a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

… Constitutional Courts, in the exercise of judicial review, are empowered to scrutinize an employer's decision to abandon a recruitment process, particularly when it has reached an advanced stage of conclusion. If such a decision is found to be arbitrary or lacks a rational nexus with the intended objective, the Court may issue appropriate directions to provide relief”, the court remarked.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal was hearing an intra-court appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition that questioned the cancellation of a recruitment process for the posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks in the Department of Posts.

The case arose from Advertisement Notification of 2016 issued for the engagement of Gramin Dak Sevaks. The appellants had applied pursuant to the said advertisement and, according to them, the selection process had progressed substantially. Appellant No.1 was asked to submit his Computer Literacy Certificate, which he did, and his antecedents were also verified by the CID, J&K Police, whereafter he was cleared. Appellant No.2 claimed that he was placed at Serial No.1 in the merit list for the post of Branch Postmaster, Kotli Mian Fateh.

However, before appointment orders could be issued, the entire recruitment process was abruptly halted and later cancelled, purportedly on the basis of a communication dated 1 August 2016 issued by the Postal Directorate proposing online selection of Gramin Dak Sevaks.

Aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court. The writ petition, however, came to be dismissed by the Single Judge and the writ court did not grant relief to the petitioners, prompting them to invoke the intra-court appellate jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a Letters Patent Appeal.

Before the Division Bench the appellants contended that the cancellation was arbitrary, bereft of reasons, and discriminatory, particularly when similarly placed candidates under the same selection were permitted to join. They further asserted that despite the ostensible reason for shifting to online recruitment, the respondents subsequently carried out selections through the manual mode, exposing the hollowness of the justification for cancellation.

While examining the rival submissions, the Bench noted that the core issue was not whether the candidates had an indefeasible right to appointment, but whether the respondents were justified in cancelling a near-complete selection process solely on the basis of a proposed procedural change.

Drawing extensively from Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that though mere inclusion in a select list does not confer an absolute right to appointment, the State cannot act arbitrarily in abandoning a selection process. Referring to Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao and the recent decision in Partha Das v. State of Tripura, the Bench emphasized that decisions to cancel recruitment, particularly at an advanced stage, are amenable to judicial review.

In one of its observations the Court held,

“The State's power to cancel such a process is not absolute and must be grounded in justifiable reasons. Constitutional Courts, in the exercise of judicial review, are empowered to scrutinize an employer's decision to abandon a recruitment process, particularly when it has reached an advanced stage of conclusion.”

The Bench found that the communication dated 1 August 2016, which formed the sole basis for cancellation, merely cited a proposal for online selection and did not disclose any irregularity or illegality in the ongoing recruitment. Abandoning a nearly concluded selection process for a mere procedural shift, without more, was held to be arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

What weighed heavily with the Court was the respondents' own subsequent conduct. The Bench noted that after cancelling the recruitment on the ground of proposed online selection, the Postal Directorate itself granted permission for manual recruitment in the J&K Circle and fresh advertisements were issued without adopting the online mode. This, the Court held, completely demolished the justification for cancelling the earlier process.

The Court observed in clear terms,

“Abandoning a nearly-concluded selection for a mere procedural change, without any allegation of irregularity, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power and lacks a rational nexus with the objective of fair recruitment.”

Taking note of the prolonged litigation spanning over eight years and the nature of the posts involved, the Bench declined to remand the matter and instead proceeded to mould relief. It noted that several posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks were presently lying vacant and the appellants could be accommodated without causing prejudice to the respondents.

Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the writ court and quashed the cancellation of the advertisement notification. The respondents were directed to offer appointment to appellant No.1 against any one of the available vacant posts of Branch Postmaster, as per his option, and thereafter consider appellant No.2 against the remaining vacancies, subject to completion of requisite formalities.

Case Title: Altaf Hussain & Anr Vs Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment