The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that candidates in public recruitment have no automatic right to appointment, even if they top the written examination. The judgment underscores the limited scope of judicial intervention in selection processes, emphasizing that merit alone does not confer a vested right to a post.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (Respondent No.2) issued an advertisement on 12.07.2012 for recruitment to various posts, including Assistant Manager (Food & Beverage) and Assistant Manager (Food Operations). The petitioners, Karan Sharma and another, applied for these positions and appeared in the written examination held on 14.02.2014. Both secured the top two ranks in their respective categories.
Key Facts
- Petitioner No.1 (Karan Sharma) scored 80 out of 100 in the written examination.
- Interviews were scheduled for 19.06.2014 for all shortlisted candidates.
- After the interview, no candidates were recommended for the posts of Assistant Manager (FO) and (F&B), despite the petitioners’ high written scores.
- The results for other advertised categories (e.g., Account Clerks, Junior Engineers) were declared and appointments made.
- Petitioner No.1 filed CWP No.9554/2014 challenging the interview process, which was disposed of on 06.04.2015 directing a fresh interview by a newly constituted committee.
- On 11.05.2015, Petitioner No.1 was re-interviewed by the new committee and again not recommended.
- Petitioner No.2 had not approached the Court during the initial 2014 interview process and only raised his grievance after the 2015 order.
- The Corporation maintained that the selection committee found all candidates unsuitable for appointment.
Procedural History
- 12.07.2012: Advertisement issued for recruitment to multiple posts.
- 14.02.2014: Written examination conducted.
- 19.06.2014: Initial interview conducted; no recommendations made for Assistant Manager (FO) and (F&B).
- 05.01.2015: Petitioner No.1 withdrew CWP No.5519/2014.
- 06.04.2015: High Court disposed of CWP No.9554/2014, directing fresh interview for Assistant Manager (FO) by a new committee.
- 11.05.2015: Fresh interview conducted for Petitioner No.1; no recommendation issued.
- 23.09.2015: Petitioner No.1 received communication of non-recommendation (Annexure P11).
- 2019: Present writ petition (CWPOA No.4669/2019) filed before the High Court.
- 10.04.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 27.04.2026: Judgment delivered dismissing the petition.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners contended:
- Their top ranks in the written test entitled them to appointment.
- The non-recommendation was arbitrary, discriminatory, and retaliatory due to Petitioner No.1’s earlier litigation.
- The Corporation appointed candidates in other categories but not for the petitioners’ posts, indicating malafide.
- A fresh interview should be conducted under court supervision.
Respondents countered:
- No candidate was recommended by the selection committee for either post.
- The petitioners have no vested right to appointment; only a right to be considered.
- Petitioner No.2’s participation was belated and opportunistic.
- No mala fides or procedural illegality was established.
- The committee’s decision, based on expertise, cannot be second-guessed by the Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Declaration of their selection based on written exam merit.
- Setting aside of the communication dated 23.09.2015.
- Direction to the Corporation not to issue fresh advertisements.
- In the alternative, constitution of an independent committee to conduct a fresh interview.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a candidate who tops the written examination in a public recruitment process acquires a right to appointment, and whether the courts can interfere with a selection committee’s decision not to recommend any candidate, absent proof of mala fides or procedural illegality.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the high marks obtained in the written test (80/100) to argue that their non-recommendation was arbitrary and discriminatory. They cited Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India to contend that awarding low interview marks to high-scoring written candidates invites adverse inference. They alleged retaliatory conduct by the Corporation due to Petitioner No.1’s earlier writ petition and claimed violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They urged the Court to override the selection committee’s decision and direct appointment or a fresh interview under judicial supervision.
For the Respondent
The Corporation argued that the selection committee, constituted under statutory norms, found all candidates unsuitable based on their performance in the interview. It emphasized that the advertisement was an invitation to apply, not a guarantee of appointment. It relied on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India to assert that the State has no obligation to fill vacancies. It further contended that Petitioner No.2 had not challenged the initial process and could not now piggyback on Petitioner No.1’s litigation. No member of the selection committee was impleaded, making allegations of bias legally unsustainable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of Supreme Court jurisprudence on public employment selection. It held that the right to consideration is distinct from the right to appointment. The Court emphasized that the selection committee, composed of subject experts, possesses the exclusive authority to assess suitability, and its decision is entitled to deference.
"It is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject."
The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on Bishnu Biswas, noting that the case dealt with disproportionate weightage in scoring, not complete non-recommendation. Here, the committee found all candidates unsuitable - a decision that cannot be overturned absent proof of mala fides or procedural violation.
The Court further held that the petitioners’ failure to implead any member of the selection committee rendered allegations of bias and retaliation legally untenable. Citing Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom, the Court observed that a candidate who voluntarily appears before a selection committee cannot later challenge its constitution or fairness.
"Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee."
The Court also noted that the Corporation’s appointment of candidates in other categories did not imply discrimination, as each category had separate selection criteria and outcomes. The absence of recommendations for the petitioners’ posts was consistent with the committee’s overall assessment.
The Court concluded that judicial review in such matters is confined to illegality, mala fides, or patent irregularity - none of which were established here.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that neither petitioner has a right to appointment, and the selection committee’s decision not to recommend any candidate for the posts of Assistant Manager (FO) and (F&B) is valid and lawful. No direction was issued for fresh interviews, appointment, or compensation. The Court declined to award costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Review Is Narrowly Constrained
- Practitioners must now prove mala fides or procedural illegality to challenge selection outcomes - mere dissatisfaction with interview marks is insufficient.
- Courts will not substitute their judgment for that of expert selection committees, even when candidates top written exams.
- Allegations of bias must be supported by naming specific committee members as parties; generalized claims are dismissed.
Right to Consideration ≠ Right to Appointment
- Recruitment advertisements are invitations to apply, not binding offers.
- Candidates acquire no vested right to appointment unless recruitment rules explicitly provide so.
- Public authorities are under no obligation to fill all advertised vacancies, even if qualified candidates exist.
Strategic Litigation Risks
- Delayed challenges, especially those filed only after a co-petitioner’s success, are viewed with suspicion.
- Candidates who participate in selection processes without objection cannot later challenge the process’s fairness.
- Writ petitions seeking appointment based on written exam merit alone are unlikely to succeed without evidence of systemic bias or procedural violation.
