Prospective Candidate Can Challenge Arbitrary Cancellation of Recruitment: Allahabad High Court Quashes Chancellor's Order, Directs Appointment

“What has been offered is not a change in eligibility, but a factual misstatement — and the candidate cannot be penalized for administrative missteps.” With these sharp words, the Allahabad High Court decisively quashed the cancellation of a recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) by Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and directed the appointment of the selected candidate within 30 days.

Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Saran and Prakash Padia ruled that the cancellation of the selection process under Advertisement No. 2 of 2016 was not only factually incorrect but also legally untenable. The Court held that a prospective candidate has the right to challenge cancellation of recruitment if the decision is arbitrary or in breach of binding government policy.

“Employer Has a Right to Withdraw, But Not Arbitrarily”: Court Upholds Right of Prospective Candidate to Challenge Unlawful Cancellation

At the heart of the dispute was whether the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the University could halt a selection process mid-way by citing changes in the UGC Regulations, even when the selection process had already concluded and the petitioner was found successful in a sealed result.

The Court answered unequivocally in the negative:

“While the employer has an absolute right to withdraw the advertisement, yet a prospective candidate can assail the decision on the ground of arbitrariness or lack of bona fides.”

This finding came by relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, where it was held that even though selected candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment, the State cannot cancel selections without valid, bona fide reasons.

Allahabad High Court allowing the petition filed by Dr. Rani Dwivedi, a candidate selected for the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) at Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya. The Court quashed the orders of the Chancellor (dated 27.10.2017) and Vice-Chancellor (dated 03.11.2017) that annulled the recruitment process, holding them to be arbitrary, factually flawed, and in breach of a binding Government Order that protected ongoing selections. The Court directed the University to appoint the petitioner within 30 days.

The University had published Advertisement No. 2 of 2016 on 16.09.2016, inviting applications for various Assistant Professor positions. Dr. Rani Dwivedi applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science), was interviewed on 25.10.2017, and found successful. However, before the results could be published, the Chancellor convened a meeting and issued an order on 27.10.2017 halting the recruitment process, citing the introduction of amended UGC Regulations and ongoing litigation.

Following this, the Vice-Chancellor passed an order on 03.11.2017 formally cancelling the selection process. A fresh advertisement was later issued for the same post.

Dr. Rani Dwivedi filed the writ petition challenging these actions, arguing that the amendments were prospective in nature and did not affect her eligibility. She further contended that the reasons cited by the Chancellor were factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.

The Court considered the following pivotal legal questions:

Can a prospective candidate challenge the cancellation of a selection process before appointment?

Referring to Shankarsan Dash and Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana (1986) 5 SCC 268, the Court reaffirmed that:

“The State cannot act arbitrarily while withdrawing from a selection process. Even a prospective candidate may challenge such action if it reflects lack of bona fides or violates legal norms.”

The Court distinguished the earlier judgment in Dr. Amit Kumar Shukla v. Chancellor (2019), noting it concerned Advertisement No. 1 of 2016 (relating to Professors and Associate Professors), and did not consider the Supreme Court ruling in Shankarsan Dash or the Government Order dated 08.04.2017.

Was the cancellation of the recruitment justified in view of the UGC amendments?

The Chancellor had halted the selection by relying on the amended UGC (Minimum Qualifications) Regulations, 2010. However, the Court found that the amendments were clearly prospective, as also declared in the Government Order dated 08.04.2017, which stated:

“All pending advertisements shall continue to be governed by the pre-amendment qualifications, and shall not be affected by the changes introduced under the amended regulations.”

Moreover, both the petitioner and the University admitted that the amendments did not alter the qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science).

Were the factual findings of the Chancellor’s meeting correct?

The Court noted significant factual misstatements in the meeting dated 27.10.2017:

• The meeting wrongly assumed that litigation challenging the selection was pending. In truth, CMWP No. 49263/2017 had already been dismissed on 25.10.2017.

• It also falsely claimed that the selection had been pending for over two years. The advertisement had been issued only 13 months earlier.

“The entire decision-making process is marred with factual inaccuracies and reflects a complete non-application of mind.” [Para 16]

Relief and Directions: Appointment Must Be Given Within 30 Days

The Court noted that, pursuant to its interim order dated 20.02.2020, one post had been kept reserved for the petitioner. The result of the interview had been placed before the Court in a sealed cover, which confirmed that Dr. Rani Dwivedi was the selected candidate.

Counsel for the University did not dispute this in Court. Therefore, the High Court concluded:

“The petitioner no.2 thus stood selected pursuant to the interview and would have been appointed but for the impugned orders.” [Para 18]

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition in part, quashed the orders dated 27.10.2017 and 03.11.2017, and directed the Vice-Chancellor:

“To grant appointment to the petitioner no.2 on the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) after completing all procedural formalities within 30 days.”

This judgment marks a firm judicial assertion against arbitrary cancellations of recruitment under the garb of regulatory amendments. It also decisively upholds the limited but crucial right of a prospective candidate to challenge such actions when they are marred by factual error or breach of law.

The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that rule of law, not administrative discretion, must govern recruitment in public institutions.

“The employer has a right to withdraw an advertisement, but not in a manner divorced from facts, law, or fairness. The selection process cannot be annulled on the basis of an erroneous premise or breach of binding policy.”

Date of Decision: 28 October 2025