The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that while candidates have no vested right to appointment even after advanced stages of recruitment, authorities must act with fairness and grant age relaxation to aspirants rendered ineligible due to arbitrary delays or cancellations. This judgment reinforces the balance between administrative autonomy and the legitimate expectations of public employment seekers.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners in WPS No. 5300 of 2023 and WPS No. 9297 of 2023 were applicants for the posts of Staff Nurse, Radiographer, Medical Lab Technologist, and Ophthalmic Assistant under a recruitment process initiated by the Health and Family Welfare Department of Chhattisgarh. The recruitment was advertised on 24.03.2022 for six posts in the Raipur Division, but was withdrawn without reasons on 25.03.2022. A fresh advertisement dated 18.07.2022 was issued for 50 posts across Raipur and Durg Divisions, referencing the earlier sanction order dated 23.08.2021. The selection process progressed to document verification, with 216 candidates found eligible. Despite this, the entire process was cancelled on three occasions without assigning specific reasons, culminating in a rejection letter dated 20.11.2023 citing ‘unavoidable reasons’ and stating that fresh recruitment would be conducted only after obtaining financial sanction from the Finance Department.
Key Facts
- Sanction for 65 Ophthalmic Assistant posts was granted by letter dated 23.08.2021, exclusively for direct recruitment
- Advertisement dated 24.03.2022 was issued for 6 posts, withdrawn on 25.03.2022 without reasons
- Fresh advertisement dated 18.07.2022 invited applications for 50 posts across Raipur/Durg Divisions
- Application submission closed on 15.08.2022
- Eligibility list published on 25.08.2022, listing 216 candidates
- Document verification conducted on 05.09.2022
- Recruitment process cancelled for the third time on 20.11.2023 via rejection letter
- No reasons provided beyond ‘unavoidable reasons’
- Respondents stated fresh recruitment would be conducted through CG Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) after Finance Department sanction
- Many petitioners have since crossed the upper age limit of 30 - 35 years (as per advertisement)
Procedural History
- 23.08.2021: Sanction order issued for 65 Ophthalmic Assistant posts
- 24.03.2022: First advertisement issued for 6 posts
- 25.03.2022: Advertisement withdrawn without reasons
- 18.07.2022: Fresh advertisement issued for 50 posts
- 15.08.2022: Last date for application submission
- 25.08.2022: Eligibility list published
- 05.09.2022: Document verification completed
- 20.11.2023: Final cancellation order issued via rejection letter
- 10.11.2023: WPS No. 8884/2023 resulted in direction to decide representation within stipulated time
- 22.11.2023: Representation rejected
- 02.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Chhattisgarh High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that cancellation at an advanced stage, after document verification and without reasons, violated principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation. They contended that the State’s conduct was arbitrary and capricious, and that candidates who invested time and money in preparation should not be penalized by age bar due to administrative inaction.
Respondents: Maintained that no vested right to appointment arises merely from inclusion in the eligibility list. Cancellation was necessitated by lack of financial sanction from the Finance Department, a mandatory precondition for recruitment. Fresh recruitment would be initiated upon obtaining sanction.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the cancellation order dated 20.11.2023
- Restoration of the recruitment process for the 50 posts
- Direct appointment of petitioners based on the merit list
- In the alternative, age relaxation for all petitioners in any future recruitment
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the cancellation of a recruitment process at an advanced stage, without assigning specific reasons and resulting in candidates becoming age-barred, violates the principle of legitimate expectation and whether the State is obligated to grant age relaxation in a subsequent recruitment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha (2025) 7 SCC 705, Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission (1990 Supp SCC 692), and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway (2019) 12 SCC 798 to argue that while no vested right to appointment exists, the State cannot act arbitrarily. The petitioners had fulfilled all procedural requirements, and cancellation at the final stage, without reasons, amounted to abuse of power. They emphasized that candidates incurred financial and emotional costs, and the State, as a model employer, must mitigate hardship by granting age relaxation.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate contended that the recruitment process is an executive function, and the State retains the discretion to cancel it at any stage. The absence of financial sanction from the Finance Department was a valid administrative ground. The Supreme Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dr. Vinay Kumar (2022) 18 SCC 358 and Transmission Corporation of Telangana v. Chukkala Kranthi Kiran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1785) affirmed that candidates have no legal right to compel continuation of a recruitment process. The cancellation was not mala fide but necessitated by fiscal constraints.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between administrative discretion and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It acknowledged that while no candidate possesses a vested right to appointment merely because their name appears on a select list, the State’s conduct must not be arbitrary, capricious, or mala fide. The Court noted that the recruitment process had progressed beyond initial stages: applications were received, eligibility was confirmed, documents were verified, and candidates were awaiting final selection. At this point, a legitimate expectation of fair conclusion arose.
"The position in law finds reiteration in a decision of recent origin in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway, where the majority held that the employer must give cogent reasons for not appointing selected candidates."
The Court accepted the State’s justification of lack of financial sanction as a valid administrative ground. However, it emphasized that such a ground, while legally sufficient to cancel the process, does not absolve the State of its duty to act fairly. The repeated cancellations - three in total - and the failure to initiate fresh recruitment for over a year created a situation where petitioners, who were within age limits at the time of application, are now permanently excluded.
The Court distinguished between the legality of cancellation and the equity of consequences. While the cancellation itself was upheld as lawful, the failure to address the resulting disadvantage to candidates was deemed inequitable. The Court observed:
"That apart, since every process of recruitment necessarily involves substantial expenses which are borne from the public exchequer and at the same time the aspirants for the posts... cherish fond hopes of a bright and secure future, the law is clear that the policy decision not to carry the process forward must be taken bona fide... and must not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness."
The Court further relied on Arabinda Rabha to affirm that while the State may cancel recruitment, it cannot ignore the hardship caused to candidates who acted in good faith. The absence of age relaxation in the face of administrative delay was held to be inconsistent with the State’s obligation as a model employer.
The Verdict
The writ petitions were dismissed. The cancellation of the recruitment process dated 20.11.2023 was upheld as lawful on grounds of non-availability of financial sanction. However, the Court directed the respondents to grant appropriate age relaxation to all petitioners in any future recruitment for the posts of Ophthalmic Assistant, Staff Nurse, Radiographer, and Medical Lab Technologist. The respondents were directed to initiate a fresh recruitment process through CG Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) within six months of the judgment. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Legitimate Expectation Survives Cancellation
- Practitioners must argue that when recruitment progresses beyond initial stages (application, eligibility, document verification), candidates develop a legitimate expectation of fair conclusion
- Cancellation without reasons at this stage invites judicial scrutiny under Article 14 and 21
- Even if cancellation is legally valid, failure to mitigate hardship may be deemed arbitrary
Age Relaxation Is Not Discretionary But Equitable
- When candidates become age-barred due to administrative delays or cancellations, courts will compel age relaxation in subsequent recruitments
- This applies even if the original advertisement did not provide for relaxation
- The burden shifts to the State to justify why relaxation should not be granted
Administrative Grounds Must Be Documented and Timely
- Financial sanction delays must be formally recorded and communicated to applicants
- Repeated cancellations without timelines for revival invite allegations of arbitrariness
- Employers must establish clear internal protocols for recruitment suspension and revival
