Mere Selection Does Not Confer a Vested Right to Appointment: Bombay High Court Upholds Cancellation of Assistant Professor Recruitment Over Alleged Irregularities

“In the wake of serious complaints, internal dissension among the Management’s office bearers, and prima facie irregularities… the Management’s decision to cancel the process was within its discretion” - In a significant judgment the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) held that mere selection of a candidate does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment, especially when the selection process is vitiated by serious irregularities and credible allegations of corruption. The Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by selected candidates seeking appointment as Assistant Professors in institutions run by the Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj.
A division bench comprising Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice S.G. Mehare pronounced the verdict in Dr. Dagadu Sakharam Talule & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 886 of 2024), upholding the Management’s decision to cancel the selection process, citing procedural lapses and complaints of unfair practices.
The Court observed, “The selection of a candidate for a post merely enables him to be considered for appointment and does not vest in him a right to be appointed,” placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 161.
Serious Complaints and Resignation of Trust President Prompted Review of Recruitment
The controversy arose from a recruitment process advertised on March 9, 2023, inviting applications for 47 posts of Assistant Professors across 14 subjects. Interviews were conducted in July 2023 and provisional approval was granted by Savitribai Phule Pune University. However, several candidates, trustees, and even the former President of the Management raised complaints alleging massive irregularities, leading to his resignation.

The allegations included claims that:
•    Interviews lasted only 1–2 minutes per candidate;
•    Assessment sheets were filled in pencil and had overwriting;
•    Some candidates were allegedly asked for bribes ranging from ₹20 lakh to ₹55 lakh for selection.
In response, the Governing Council of the Management passed a resolution on August 4, 2023, cancelling the entire selection process. This decision was endorsed by the University after considering the procedural flaws.

“No Mandamus Can Be Issued to Appoint a Selected Candidate Unless Selection Was Transparent”: High Court
While the selected candidates approached the Court seeking directions for their appointment, the Bench held that such claims are untenable when the very process of selection is found to be vitiated.
The Court noted, “A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment,” quoting the Apex Court’s dictum in Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish, (2006) 1 SCC 779.
Further, the Court remarked that “there is no arbitrariness or mala fide in the decision of the Management in cancelling the selection process,” particularly since the move was endorsed by a majority of the Governing Council members and was made in the wake of several credible complaints.
It rejected the petitioners’ claim that cancellation of the selection process was arbitrary, observing, “In such circumstances, it is difficult to accept that the Management should be compelled to issue appointment orders in the face of unresolved and serious allegations.”
Court Clarifies Role of Provisional Approval and Power of Management
The petitioners had relied heavily on the provisional approval granted by the University as a ground to claim that appointment orders should be issued. However, the High Court clarified that such approval only signifies that the process met prima facie scrutiny and does not bind the Management to proceed with appointments in the face of subsequent revelations.
Citing University Statutes 411(2) and 415, the Court emphasized that the final authority to appoint and cancel a recruitment lies with the Management. “Even if the University granted provisional approval, it does not mean that the Management cannot act upon legitimate and serious complaints of corruption and irregularities,” the Court held.
Selected Candidates Have No Enforceable Right to Appointment, Says Bench
Rejecting the contention that appointment orders should follow automatically after selection, the Court reiterated that selection merely confers eligibility, not entitlement. It further remarked that granting relief to the petitioners would undermine the very principles of transparency and fairness in public recruitment.
“In view of serious allegations and lack of conclusive clean chit, the Management cannot be faulted for deciding to protect the institutional integrity over individual expectations,” the Court observed.
Concluding the judgment, the Court stated: “We find no merit in the petitions seeking appointment orders. The Management’s decision to cancel the selection process was taken in accordance with statutory provisions, and in the interest of fairness and institutional credibility. The selected candidates have no enforceable right in law to compel their appointment.”
Date of Decision: 09 April 2025