Dismisses plea that challenged J&K Bank’s cancellation of job advertisement
Srinagar: “A job aspirant does not have any right to seek appointment even if his name figures in the selection list,” the J&K High Court held on Monday while dismissing a plea of candidates who had challenged the J&K Bank’s cancellation of the selection process for Probationary Officers and Banking Associates.
The court also directed J&K Bank to go ahead with the fresh selection process.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey recorded in a detailed judgement that the petitioners had taken a valid stand in their writ petitions that no vested right of selection/ appointment is created in favour of petitioners merely because they participated in the selection process. However, they questioned the cancellation on the grounds that the infirmities or irregularities, if any, in the selection process could have been set right by some other administrative means, therefore, the cancellation done was unreasonable.
Justice Magrey said, “This stand of the petitioners itself takes care of the first question that the petitioners are not clothed with any right, much less an indefeasible right to seek selection/ appointment against a post which initially had been advertised by the respondents and subsequently withdrawn/ scrapped or cancelled. Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are not having any indefeasible right to seek continuation of the selection process which stood cancelled.”
The court also recorded that as far as the authority of the respondents to cancel the selection process is concerned, this aspect also stands literally admitted by the petitioners that the respondents had the authority to cancel it, but their contention is that it was unwarranted, as the defects, if any in the selection process, could have been cured by some other administrative means.
The court also noted that the Bank had gone wrong when it construed the district-wise requirement as district-wise recruitment. It further went on to frame a merit list district-wise, meaning thereby that the conception of one unit policy which is followed in the respondent Bank has been flouted with impunity in the said recruitment process.
“This irregularity might have had the scope of correction but the respondent Bank had gone further wrong in not offering reservation in the whole process which certainly was incurable, therefore, the Bank was left with no option but to initiate a process ab-initio,” the court recorded.
“Such action was also very likely to be litigated and the respondent Bank in such a situation would not have been able to justify its action. The respondents, therefore, had no option but to cancel the whole exercise and go for a fresh one which they did. In this view of the matter it is held that the respondents had the authority to cancel the whole selection process rather than for going to rectify the wrong by keeping the process intact,” Justice Magrey recorded.
It was recorded that it is the law of the land that a job aspirant does not have any right to seek appointment even if his name figures in the selection list. In the present case, however, the selection process had not even culminated; therefore, the challenge laid to the impugned action of the respondents is impermissible, the court held.
“Having said so, the writ petitions are held to be without any merit, therefore, dismissed along with all CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. The respondents shall proceed ahead with the fresh selection process initiated in terms of the impugned advertisement notice,” the court directed.