Exoneration From Malpractice In Cancelled Exam Does Not Create Vested Right To Appointment In Subsequent Vacancies: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that mere exoneration from allegations of malpractice in a cancelled recruitment process does not confer a vested right to appointment. The Court observed that while an inquiry report may establish that a candidate was not involved in any irregularity, it neither revives a cancelled recruitment process nor creates a right to seek appointment against vacancies arising under subsequent recruitment advertisements.Justice Pankaj Purohit was hearing a batch of petitions filed by candidates who had participated in the recruitment process initiated in 2015 for the post of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari. The petitioners had appeared in the written examination and were declared successful. However, following complaints regarding the manipulation of OMR answer sheets, the entire selection process was cancelled in 2017. Pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in an earlier case, a restricted re-examination was conducted in 2018, and a fresh merit list was prepared. The petitioners claimed that a subsequent inquiry report had exonerated them from allegations of malpractice and, therefore, they were entitled to be considered for appointment against available vacancies.The respondents opposed the petitions, contending that the original recruitment process had been cancelled and that the petitioners had not been selected in the re-examination conducted in 2018. The Court accepted the respondents' contention. It observed that once the original selection was cancelled and a fresh selection process was undertaken pursuant to the Court's earlier directions, the rights of all candidates became subject to the outcome of that process. The Court noted that the petitioners had admittedly not secured selection in the re-examination. The Court held that although the inquiry report established that the petitioners were not involved in any irregularity, such exoneration did not revive the cancelled recruitment process or create a right in their favour to seek appointment against vacancies arising under subsequent recruitment advertisements. It remarked that the subsequent vacancies constituted separate recruitment processes governed by independent selection procedures.“Mere exoneration from allegations of malpractice does not confer any vested right to appointment. The final inquiry report may establish that the petitioners were not involved in any irregularity, but it neither revives the cancelled recruitment process nor creates a right in their favour to seek appointment against vacancies arising under subsequent recruitment advertisements,” the Court observed. The Court also held that the earlier order directing consideration of the petitioners' representations had merely required the authorities to consider their claim. Since the authorities had examined the matter and rejected the claim on the ground that the recruitment process had attained finality after the re-examination and that the petitioners were not included in the final select list, the decision could not be said to be arbitrary or illegal.Accordingly, finding no ground for interference with the impugned order, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions.Case Title: Madhu Bala v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [Writ Petition Service Single No. 1571 of 2026] and Connected matters.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Exoneration From Malpractice In Cancelled Exam Does Not Create Vested Right To Appointment In Subsequent Vacancies: Uttarakhand High Court

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saksham Vaishya

Exoneration From Malpractice In Cancelled Exam Does Not Create Vested Right To Appointment In Subsequent Vacancies: Uttarakhand High Court

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers