The Orissa High Court has held that the State cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to selected candidates in a public service and it is liable to show reason for non-consideration of their candidatures, especially when large number of posts remain vacant in that cadre. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 77]

Allowing a writ petition filed by two candidates whose selection as Reporters in the Odisha Legislative Assembly was arbitrarily cancelled, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra held–

“Just because discretion has been vested with the Authority, it does not mean such discretion can be exercised arbitrarily. Law is also well settled that when the employer is the State, it must give some justifiable non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the post and it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot, without any rhyme or reason, decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible reason for not filling up the posts.”

The petitioners applied for recruitment to the posts of Reporters in the Odisha Legislative Assembly pursuant to an advertisement dated 26.01.2021. Upon successfully qualifying all the stages of the examination, their names were shortlisted in the final merit list. As per the Orissa legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 ('1983 Rules'), the appointments were to come through after getting clearance from the Selection Board and the Speaker of the Assembly.

Since there was an unreasonable delay in convening the Selection Board, the petitioners had earlier filed another writ petition seeking direction for issuance of appointment orders. The said writ petition was disposed of on 19.05.2023 by directing the Selection Board to take a final decision regarding the appointment of the petitioners within eight weeks.

The Assembly, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, preferred a writ appeal. Strangely, while the writ appeal was pending for final decision, the authorities issued a notice dated 21.07.2023, under the guise of implementing the Court's order, cancelling the entire recruitment process. Assailing the said cancellation notice, the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking restoration of the selection process and issuance of appointment orders.

The question which arose for adjudication was whether the Assembly was justified in cancelling the selection and issuing a fresh advertisement for filling up the vacant posts, notwithstanding an order from the High Court directing consideration of the petitioners' candidatures. Further, whether any right to appointment accrued in favour of the petitioners by their very selection for the posts.

Justice Mishra noted the only reason for withholding the names of the petitioners by the Selection Board was absence of any verification or perusal of the original documents relating to the recruitment examination. The Judge held that the Assembly erred in cancelling the entire selection process, especially when the High Court had already ruled out irregularity therein. Thus, such impugned action was found to be hit by the doctrine of res judicata.

So far as the accrual of rights in favour of the petitioners was concerned, the Court categorically reiterated the clear position of law, i.e. a person on the merit list has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected, though he has a right to be considered for appointment. However, it also held that the authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims.

“When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate.”

The Court, therefore, held that when a challenge is laid to State's action in respect of denying appointment to a selected candidate, the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the select list. Since the State failed in discharging the said burden in this case, the Court ruled, the petitioners got a legal right to pray for setting aside the said cancellation notice and to seek for a direction for their appointment.

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notice cancelling the selection process and the Assembly was directed to comply with the remaining formalities as per the 1983 Rules and issue appointment letters to the petitioners within four weeks.

Case Title: Sourava Rout & Anr. v. Odisha Legislative Assembly & Anr.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 23353 of 2023

Date of Judgment: July 03, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Subrat Misra, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate for the Assembly; Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 77

Click Here To Read/Download Order