‘Selection leads to job expectation’: Karnataka High Court tells govt it can’t cancel 2016 KPSC recruitments

The bench added that not offering an appointment to a duly selected candidate should be for justified and valid reasons and not for arbitrary, illegal, or mala fide reasons.

Conflict with authorities

• The legal battle stemmed from a 2016 KPSC recruitment notification for 211 work inspector posts, governed by the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Common Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011.
• On October 4, 2017, the secretary of the Urban Development Department communicated that the Public Works Department (PWD) had abolished the cadre of work inspector in 2011, and the same had been removed from the Cadre and Recruitment rules of the PWD.
• The draft Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Common Recruitment of Officers and Employees) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, proposed for 10 corporations were pending for finalisation, and consequently, cancellation of selection for the post of work inspector in question was sought.
• Although a final select list was published in 2017, the state government issued an executive order on January 5, 2021, attempting to abolish 380 work inspector posts to meet financial or administrative exigencies.

Petitioner’s case

• Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Lakshmi Narayana submitted that the post of work inspector and various other posts were created under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Common Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011.
• He further submitted that the cadre of work inspectors consists of 380 posts, and without an amendment to the statutory rules, the cadre of work inspectors cannot be abolished by merely executive instructions.
• He argued that the selection process once held cannot be cancelled arbitrarily at the whim of the government.
• He stated that the government consciously decided to appoint the candidates who had secured more than 25 per cent marks in the selection process and whose names were on the selected list.
• He continued that despite this decision and undertaking, the government has now changed its stand, claiming that it has since abolished the cadre via the 2021 order.

Justices D K Singh and S Rachaiah were dealing with a plea of candidates who were successfully selected for the post of work inspector through the 2016 recruitment drive.

‘Govt cannot abolish cadre, unless…’

• The government order dated January 5, 2021, cannot abolish the cadre of work inspector under the 2011 Rules, unless there is a necessary amendment to that effect in the statutory rules, the Karnataka High Court held.
• The government order dated is a mere policy decision that must be given effect by amending the rules.
• Unless the rules are amended, the cadre of work inspectors continues to exist.
• We reject the contention of the additional advocate general that the government is empowered to abolish the post/cadre by taking an executive decision, and there is no requirement or necessity of amending the statutory rules to that effect.
• Another question that arises for consideration is whether the government is empowered to withhold the appointment of a duly selected candidate when there are no allegations in respect of the selection process or the eligibility of the candidate.
• It is well that the government is not compelled to appoint a duly selected candidate since mere selection or inclusion in the merit list or final list does not create a vested or indefeasible right to appointment.
• The government or the authority may withhold the appointment for valid reasons, including policy considerations, changes in eligibility, or a conscious decision not to fill all vacancies.
• A candidate cannot seek a writ of mandamus to compel appointment solely based on selection, and the government has the power to refuse or withhold the appointment, provided there exist valid reasons.

‘Court may intervene’

• A duly selected candidate may not have a legal right to appointment and the government may withhold from appointing a selected candidate, provided the decision not to give appointment is neither mala fide nor arbitrary and grounded in statutory rules or a policy decision.
• Where statutory rules exist, or a candidate has a legitimate expectation grounded in prior conduct or an explicit assurance, the court may intervene and compel the government to offer the appointment.
• Against the 211 posts advertised, petitioners are only four in number, and even if the government has decided to abolish 380 posts in the cadre of work inspector, the petitioners should be considered for appointment, and in the case of abolition of the cadre by amending the rules, the petitioners should be merged into an equivalent cadre.