# Anand Singh Aswal v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 6 ILRA 157
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-06-06
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 35844 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-singh-aswal-v-u-o-i-ors-53569
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 14 - Principle of
natural justice - Appointment - Post of
Producer - Withdrawal of appointment -
No reason was given in the impugned
order - Effect - Held, the manner under
which the impugned order withdrawing
the offer of appointment has been issued
is
violative
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution of India inasmuch as it is a
settled law that the requirement to record
reasons is a fundamental principle of
natural justice which acts as a check
against arbitrary exercise of powers and
ensures fairness. The opposite parties
acted
arbitrarily
and
in
violation
of
principles of natural justice. (Para 36)
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B.
Service
Law
-
Appointment
-
Irregularity in constitution of Selection
Committee
-
Effect
-
Principle
of
legitimate expectation - Applicability -
The petitioners was selected and offered
appointment - How far petitioners put to
suffer due to fault of authorities in
constituting
the
committee
-
Food
Corporation of India's case relied upon -
Held, though the petitioners have got no
absolute right of appointment in these
circumstances,
but
their
expectation
cannot be defeated arbitrarily or without
adhering to principles of fairness and
reasonableness. (Para 39 and 40)

C. Service Law - Principle of Promissory
Estoppel - Applicability - The petitioners,
acting in a good faith manner, appeared
before the Selection Committee and also
succeeded in selection - Effect - Held,
where any party makes promise on which
the other party acts to his detriment, the
promisor is estopped from going back on the
promise - Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd.'s case relied upon. (Para 39 and 40)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,627 of 46,585. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39627 for what follows._

6 All. Anand Singh Aswal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
157
28. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Cane
Commissioner and the Chairman, State
Cane Services Authority, U.P., Lucknow
and the appellate order dated 24.09.2024
passed by the Commissioner, Cane and
Sugar,
U.P.,
Lucknow,
are
hereby
quashed.
It
will
be
open
to
the
respondents, if they so elect, to pursue fresh
proceedings against the petitioner. If they
so elect, they would be obliged to draw up
the
charge-sheet
in
accordance
with
Regulation 68 of the Regulations of 1975,
mentioning therein the details of evidence
against each charge, by which, it is
proposed to be proved. Apart from that, the
charge-sheet
dated
28.12.2020
would
remain as it is. If the respondents pursue
fresh proceedings against the petitioner, the
inquiry would be held, bearing in mind the
guidance in this judgment for the holding
of departmental inquiries. It is further
directed that if indeed fresh proceedings are
pursued against the petitioner on the basis
of the slightly rectified charge-sheet, a
punishment
higher
than
that
already
awarded to the petitioner shall not be
imposed. It is made clear that if fresh
proceedings
are
pursued
against
the
petitioner, he would not be entitled to any
monetary benefits from the quashing of the
orders impugned immediately, but that
would depend upon the event in the inquiry
proceedings to be taken afresh. If no
proceedings are taken, the respondents
would be obliged to pay the petitioner the
arrears of his emoluments, arising on
account of the difference of what he has
received and what would be payable with
the penalty awarded effaced.

29. There shall be no order as to
costs.

30. Let this order be communicated
to the Cane Commissioner and Chairman,
State Cane Services Authority, U.P.,
Lucknow and the Commissioner, Cane and
Sugar, U.P., Lucknow by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2025) 6 ILRA 157
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.06.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 35844 of 2019
With
Writ A No. 589 of 2020

Anand Singh Aswal ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shalabh Singh, Gaurav Kaushik, Navneet
Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.S.G., Dr. V.K. Singh, Sanjeev Kumar
Srivastava, Shailesh Kumar

A.
Service
Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 14 - Principle of
natural justice - Appointment - Post of
Producer - Withdrawal of appointment -
No reason was given in the impugned
order - Effect - Held, the manner under
which the impugned order withdrawing
the offer of appointment has been issued
is
violative
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution of India inasmuch as it is a
settled law that the requirement to record
reasons is a fundamental principle of
natural justice which acts as a check
against arbitrary exercise of powers and
ensures fairness. The opposite parties
acted
arbitrarily
and
in
violation
of
principles of natural justice. (Para 36)
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B.
Service
Law
-
Appointment
-
Irregularity in constitution of Selection
Committee
-
Effect
-
Principle
of
legitimate expectation - Applicability -
The petitioners was selected and offered
appointment - How far petitioners put to
suffer due to fault of authorities in
constituting
the
committee
-
Food
Corporation of India's case relied upon -
Held, though the petitioners have got no
absolute right of appointment in these
circumstances,
but
their
expectation
cannot be defeated arbitrarily or without
adhering to principles of fairness and
reasonableness. (Para 39 and 40)

C. Service Law - Principle of Promissory
Estoppel - Applicability - The petitioners,
acting in a good faith manner, appeared
before the Selection Committee and also
succeeded in selection - Effect - Held,
where any party makes promise on which
the other party acts to his detriment, the
promisor is estopped from going back on the
promise - Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd.'s case relied upon. (Para 39 and 40)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. E.P. Royappa Vs St. of T.N. anr.; (1974) 4
SCC 3

2. Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs International
Airport Authority of India & ors.; (1979) 3 SCC
489

3. ABL International Ltd. and anr. Vs Export
Credit Guarantee Corp. of India Ltd. & ors.;
(2004) 3 SCC 553

4. St. of Orissa Vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei &
ors.; AIR 1967 SC 1269

5. A.K. Kraipak & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.; (1969) 2
SCC 262

6. F.C.I. Vs M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed
Industries; (1993) 1 SCC 71

7. M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs
The St. of U.P.; (1979) 2 SCC 409
8. Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur
Vs J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur; AIR 1957 All
311

9. Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. Vs S.P. Gururaja &
ors.; (2003) 8 SCC 567

10. MRF Ltd. Vs Manohar Parrikar & ors.; (2010)
11 SCC 374

11. Tej Prakash Pathak & ors. Vs Rajasthan High
Court & ors.; (2025) 2 SCC 1

12. Shankarsan Dash Vs U.O.I.; (1991) 3 SCC
47

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. In both the aforesaid writ petitions
since the facts and legal submissions are
similar, therefore, with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties both the writ
petitions have been connected together and
are being decided by a common judgment
and order.

2. Heard Sri Shalabh Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr.V.K.
Singh, learned counsel for the University/
opposite parties and Sri Sanjeev Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for the U.G.C./
opposite parties in the first writ petition and
Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate
holding brief of Sri Vimal Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M.
Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the
opposite parties in the second writ petition.

3. In the first writ petition (WRITA No.35844 of 2019), the petitioner has
prayed the following prayer:-

 "(I) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari thereby
quashing the order dated 27.11.2019,
passed by the opposite party No.4 by means
6 All. Anand Singh Aswal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
159
of which in furtherance of the meeting of
Board of Management of opposite party
Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 the offer of appointment
given to the petitioner for the post of
producer
in
Electronic
Multi
Media
Research Centre, Babasaheb Bhimrao
Ambedkar
University,
Vidya
Vihar,
Raebareli Road, Lucknow, annexed to this
Writ petition as Annexure No.1.

 (I-A) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certorai thereby
quashing the order dated 31.10.2018, taken
in a closed door Board meeting passed by
the opposite party No.5 and communicated
to other opposite parties where this
arbitrary
decision
of
depriving
the
petitioner to get the posting even after
accepting the appointment letter with all its
terms and of cancelling/ withdrawing the
post of Producer of EMMRC, in a
capricious show of sheer ipse dixit and
administrative fiat.

 (I-B) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari thereby
quashing the order dated 20.08.2019,
whereby the aforesaid resolution dated
31.01.2018 was confirmed.

 (I-C) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorarified
mandamus
by
summoning
all
the
records of the said alleged meeting of
Board of Management of opposite party
No.5
dated
31.10.2018
and
for
quashing it forthwith as a blatant
exercise of arbitrary discretion and
brusque
abuse
of
the
powers
so
conferred where as appointment duly
accepted
and
finalized
has
been
withdrawn callously in a cavalier
manner and by allowing not even an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
being the aggrieved party.
 II. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
thereby directing the opposite parties to
give
appointment
&
joining
to
the
petitioner on the post of Producer in
Electronic Multi Media Research Centre,
Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University,
Vidya Vihar, Raebareli Road, Lucknow in
furtherance of the appoint offered to the
petitioner on 08.06.2018.

 (III) to issue a writ, order or
direction thereby staying the operation &
implementation
of
the
order
dated
27.11.2019, passed by the opposite party
No.4."

4. In the second writ petition
(WRIT-A No.-589 of 2020), the petitioner
has prayed the following prayer:-

 "(a) to issue a writ of certiorari
or any other writ, order or direction in the
nature thereof quashing the impugned
order dated 27.11.2019 issued by the
respondent No.2 along with the resolution
of the Board of Management dated
31.10.2018 and confirmation order of the
Board dated 20.08.2019 as mentioned in
the impugned order dated 27.11.2019
contained in Annexure Nos.10 & 11.

 (b) to issue a writ of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ(s) or order(s)
or directions(s) in the nature thereof
directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to abide
by its Memorandum/ Offer of appointment
dated 08.06.2018 and grant immediate
appointment to the petitioner on the post of
"Producer" at the Media Center of the
Respondent University and immediately
intimate the petitioner a date of joining."

5. The facts and circumstances of
both the writ petitions are more or less
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
similar so in this order the relevant
submissions of both the writ petitions are
being considered.

6. The petitioners by virtue of the
aforesaid writ petitions seek to challenge
the order dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure No.
1) passed by the Opp. Party No. 4, which
withdrew the appointment of the petitioners
to the post of Producer in the Electronic
Multi Media Research Centre (here-in-after
referred to as the "EMMRC").

7. The Board of Management
EMMRC (here-in-after referred to as the
"Respondent 5") passed a resolution dated
31.10.2018 stating that the appointment to
the posts of Producers and Engineers Gr.1
stood cancelled (Annexure 1-A). This was
confirmed by the Board of Management of
the EMMRC on 20.08.2019.

8.
The
Babasaheb
Bhimrao
Ambedkar University, (here-in-after referred
to as the "University") Vidya Vihar, Raebareli
Road, Lucknow is a Central University
situated in Lucknow, which offers courses in
the Graduate and Postgraduate degrees. The
Consortium for Educational Communication
(here-in-after referred to as the "CEC") was
established by the UGC with the goal of
addressing the higher education needs through
television and using emerging technologies. It
is the nodal body functioning directly under
the UGC. The University, like many others of
its kind has an EMMRC which is involved in
the production of videos and multimediabased programs in line with the guidelines of
the UGC. Furthermore, it also prepares audiovisual study material for the students who
intend
to
pursue
education
through
Information Communication Technology.

9. The University entered into an
MOU
with
the
UGC,
CEC
dated
02.02.2015.
The
Memorandum
of
Understanding (MOU) outlines the roles
and responsibilities of the University
Grants Commission (UGC), Consortium,
Universities/Institutions,
and
Media
Centres as in

 the collaboration for educational
communication using electronic media and
ICT, joint responsibility for structuring and
sustaining media use, academic linkages
between institutions and Media Centres,
provision of funds by the Commission,
defined
functions
and
responsibilities,establishment of Board of
Management and Regional Council for
management and coordination. This MOU
aims
to
promote
technology-enabled
education and related activities.

10. The University issued an
advertisement dated 13.01.2017 (Annexure
No.2) for the recruitment on the posts in the
EMMRC and the posts in the advertisement
was the post of the Producer. The
advertisement provided the qualifications
for the various posts and the petitioners,
fulfilling the same, applied for the post of
Producer (Annexure No. 3). Upon clearing
the preliminary round, the petitioners were
called for an interview to New Delhi which
they successfully cleared. Pursuant to this,
a meeting was called by the Board of
Management of the EMMRC on the
30.01.2018
where
the
petitioners
acceptance
was
considered.
A
memorandum containing the acceptance
was communicated to the petitioners on
08.06.2018
(Annexure
No.6).
The
petitioners accepted the memorandum and
the same was communicated to the
EMMRC (Annexure No. 7). At this stage,
all
the
formalities
regarding
the
appointment from the side of the petitioners
stood completed and all that was required
6 All. Anand Singh Aswal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
161
was a final letter of appointment to be
issued by the Registrar of the University
(here-in-after
referred
to
as
the
"Respondent No.4"). The petitioners filed
several representations to the Opposite
parties No. 3 & 4 regarding the status of
their appointment (Annexure Nos.8 to 11) ,
but to no avail.

11.
The
advertisement
dated
13.01.2017, issued by the University for the
position in question, included specific
clauses reserving the University's right to
withdraw or not fill any advertised
positions at any time (Annexure No. CA4). For the convenience of this Hon'ble
High Court, Clauses 1 and 16 of the
advertisement are reproduced herein.

 "Clause
1-
The
University
reserves its right to:

 a.
Withdraw
any
advertised
post(s) under any category at any time
without
assigning
any
reason.
Any
consequential vacancies arising at the time
of interview may also be filled up from the
available candidates. The number of
positions is thus open to change.

 b. Offer the post at a level lower
than the advertised, depending A upon the
qualification, experience and performance
of the candidates

 c. Draw reserve panel(s) against
the possible vacancies in future.

 d. Increase or decrease of post
under any category or not to fill up any of
the positions."

 "Clause
16-In
case
of
any
inadvertent mistake in process of selection
which may be detected at any stage even
after issue of appointment letter, the
University
reserves
the
right
to
modify/withdraw/cancel
any
communication made to the candidates."

12. The petitioner of the first writ
petition also filed an RTI wherein he asked
6 questions relating to the status of his
appointment, but while providing the
answer to 4 questions failed to answer
question Nos.5 and 6, which are key to the
case of the petitioners. Question No.5
relates to the procedure and selection
process used for the appointment of
candidates to the post of cameraman,
production assistant and graphic artist.
Question 6 relates to the reason for delay of
more than 15 months in the issuance of the
letter of appointment after the issuance of
the offer letter.

13. Further, the UGC also served
an email to Respondent No.3 dated
23.09.2019 asking them to take necessary
action at the earliest (Annexure No. 14).
Thereafter,
the
petitioners
represented
before the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 , but
to no avail (Annexure No. 15). The
petitioners again represented before the
opposite party Nos. 4 & 6 by filing
representations
dated
22.10.2019
and
09.11.2019 respectively (Annexure 16 and
17). The impugned order withdrawing the
appointment of the petitioners was passed
on 27.11.19.

14. Further, the learned counsel for
the petitioners has contended that the order
dated 27.11.2019 issued by Opposite Party
No. 4, which followed the meeting of the
Board of Management of Opposite Parties
No. 2, 3, 4, and 5, and which rescinded the
offer of appointment to the petitioners for
the post of Producer at the Electronic Multi
Media
Research
Centre,
Babasaheb
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Vidya
Vihar, Rae Bareli Road, Lucknow, is
illegal, arbitrary, and entirely beyond
jurisdiction.

15. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that Selection
Committee
for
appointment
of
the
petitioners and others on the post of
Producer, was constituted in accordance
with the Memorandum of Understanding
entered into between the Respondent No.1
and
Consortium
for
Educational
Communication (CEC). It explicitly stated
that the quorum for such appointments was
confined to Chairperson/ Co-chairperson
and at least two outside experts and the
quorum was met during the interview of the
petitioners and as such his appointment to
the post was just and reasonable and there
was no tenable ground to withdraw the
appointment by the Respondent No.1. It is
further important to mention here that from
the bare reading of clause 2.3 under the
heading of functions and powers of the
Board of Management that Board of
Management may make appointment to the
posts in the grade of Rs.15600-39100+GP
5400/- (Group 'A') and above, the
Selection Committee in such cases shall
consist of the Vice-Chancellor of Host
University, who shall be the Chairperson of
the Selection Committee, Director CEC as
Co-Chairperson, three outside experts one
each to be nominated by the Chairperson,
BG, CEC, Vice-Chancellor host University
and the Director, CEC. Presence of
Chairperson/ Co-chairperson and at least
two
outside
experts
will
meet
the
requirement
of
quorum
of
Selection
Committee. Except in case of the Selection
of the Director of Media Centre, the
Director of the Media Centre will act as
Member
Secretary
to
the
Selection
Committee in all such cases.
16.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has further submitted that the
respondents have taken the false and
cooked plea to deprived the petitioners
from
the
legal
rights.
Further,
the
respondent not on its volition, but only
after the petitioner of the second writ
petition
had
approached
this
court
previously by way of a writ petition
(Service Single No.23834 of 2019) wherein
vide order dated 03.09.2019, this court
directed the petitioner to make a fresh
representation with his grievance and the
same would be decided by passing a
detailed and reasoned order by the
respondent-University. As is being claimed
by the respondent in its reply, if at all the
decision to withdraw the post in question
had already been taken in a meeting of the
Board of Management of EMMRC of the
University on 31.10.2018 and confirmed in
the meeting held on 20.08.2019, then the
respondent has given no justification as to
why this was neither communicated to the
petitioners
when
they
repeatedly
approached the University for joining their
post and the petitioner of the first writ
petition has also wrote several letters dated
29.06.2018,
27.08.2018,
27.09.2018,
27.02.2019 and 21.08.2019 to respondents
but same was neither responded by the
respondent nor intimated to the Hon'ble
Court in the hearing dated 03.09.2019
when the counsel for respondent-University
was preset in the matter. Further, with
reference to the selection for the post of
Producer the opposite parties did not allow
any of the candidates to join, despite the
recommendation
by
the
Selection
Committee, the issuance of an invitation for
appointment and its acceptance by the
petitioner citing the withdrawal resolution.
Despite this clear approval by the highest
executive body (the BOM) on 30.01.2018,
the opposite parties later claimed in their
6 All. Anand Singh Aswal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
163
counter affidavit in the second writ petition
that the selection process for the Producer
post was flawed due to non-compliance
with an MOU as on 31.10.2018 and final
MOU dated 20.08.2019 regarding Selection
Committee composition, necessitating the
withdrawal of the offer made to the
petitioner. This action is arbitrary and
demonstrates
non-application
of
mind
because if the Selection Committee process
for the Producer post was fundamentally
flawed as alleged, then the question arises
as to why did the BOM approved the
selection recommendation on 30.01.2018.
Logically, the flaw, if genuine and
significant enough to warrant withdrawal,
should have been identified and acted upon
before or during the approval stage, not
months later. Approving a selection despite
a fundamental flaw only to withdraw it
later on the basis of that same flaw is
contradictory and unreasonable. The action
of the opposite parties in withdrawing the
offer of appointment vide impugned order
dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure No.1) is
arbitrary and illegal. The impugned order
dated 27.11.2019 was passed without
assigning
any
reasons
directing
contravening the specific direction of this
Court vide order dated 03.09.2019 as
mentioned in Annexure No.8 to pass a
detailed and reasoned order. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in several cases held and
emphasized that the requirement to record
reasons is a fundamental principle of
natural justice which acts as a check against
arbitrary exercise of power and ensures
fairness. By failing to provide reasons in
the impugned order itself, the opposite
parties
acted
arbitrarily,
leaving
the
petitioner clueless about the grounds for
withdrawal until the counter affidavit state,
thereby undermining transparency and
fairness.

17.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has submitted that Article 14
demands that the State act according to
reason and law, fairly and non-arbitrarily.
Therefore,
when
the
University
acts
arbitrarily
by
making
an
illogical,
inconsistent
decision
regarding
the
withdrawal, it violates the fundamental
guarantee, as has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in re: E.P. Royappa vs.
State of Tamil Nadu and anr., (1974) 4
SCC 3 in para-85 that equality is a dynamic
concept with many aspects and dimensions
and it cannot be cribbed, cabined and
confined within traditional and doctrinaire
limits. From a positivistic point of view,
equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In
fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn
enemies... ". Furthermore, as established by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport
Authority of India and others, (1979) 3
SCC 489 vide paras- 10, 11, 12, and 21 that
the State entities like the opposite parties
must act fairly and reasonably even in
administrative or contractual matters, and
their actions must not be arbitrary or based
on irrelevant considerations. In the present
case, the arbitrariness is patent from the
BOM's contradictory action of approving
the petitioners selection on 30.01.2018 and
later withdrawing the offer based on an
alleged flaw that presumably existed at the
time of approval. If the committee was
wrongly formed from the beginning, then
the question arises as to why did the BOM
approved these selection in the first place?
It on sets a clear contradiction. A
government
body
shouldn't
approve
something one day and cancel it the next
day based on a reason that existed all along,
unless something new and significant came
up. This kind of illogical, self-contradictory
action is considered arbitrary.
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18. The actions of the opposite
parties constitute a clear breach of a
concluded contract entered into with the
petitioners. A valid offer was made by the
opposite parties vide Memorandum/Offer
letter dated 08.06.2018. The petitioners
duly received and unequivocally accepted
the
offer
vide
communication
dated
19.06.2018 and 13.06.2018. Under Sections
2 (b), 4 and 7 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872,
upon
the
communication
of
unconditional
acceptance
through
the
acceptance letter, the proposal became a
promise, resulting in a binding contract
between the petitioners and the opposite
parties. The opposite parties refusal to
permit
joining
and
the
subsequent
withdrawal
order
dated
31.10.2018
constitute a repudiation and breach of its
contractual obligation to employ the
petitioners.

19. As per learned counsel for the
petitioners, the opposite parties placed
reliance on Clause 16 of the Advertisement
as justification is misplaced in law. The
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Ramana
Dayaram Shetty (supra) and subsequent
cases like ABL International Ltd. And
anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn.
of India Ltd. and ors., (2004) 3 SCC 553
vide paras- 10, 19, 22, 27, and 28 has held
that
State
actions,
even
within
the
contractual sphere, are subject to the
rigours of Article 14 and cannot be
arbitrary or unreasonable. Therefore, even
if
Clause
16
contractually
permitted
withdrawal for a "mistake", such power
must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and
non-arbitrarily.
Invoking
this
clause
selectively,
belatedly
and
based
on
contradictory BOM actions, as done here,
is an arbitrary exercise of power and cannot
legally justify the breach of the concluded
contract with the petitioners.
20. The decision to withdraw the
appointment offer entails severe civil
consequences for the petitioners, impacting
their livelihood and career. It is a settled
principle, under scored in re: State of
Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and
others, AIR 1967 SC 1269, as stated in
para 12 and in re: A.K. Kraipak and
others vs. Union of India and others
(1969) 2 SCC 262, para 20, that even
administrative
orders
involving
civil
consequences must be passed in conformity
with the principles of natural justice. The
principle of "Audi Alteram Partem" which
is "hear the other side" required the
opposite parties to provide the petitionerd
with notice of the alleged procedural defect
in
the
selection
committee
and
an
opportunity to present their case before the
adverse decision to withdraw the offer was
taken. Although it is true that the
University has discretion in administrative
matters. However, for a public body such
as "State" under Article 12 of the Indian
constitution, this discretion is not absolute.
It must be exercised in a reasonable, fair
and
in
a
non-arbitrary
manner
in
accordance to law and which also includes
principles
of
natural
justice
where
applicable. The purpose of hearing the
candidate is to allow him to potentially
explain why the alleged flaw shouldn't
invalidate
their
specific
selection,
especially after approval and offer. The
failure to do so renders the decision unfair
and violative of the principles of natural
justice.

21.
The
formal
offer
of
appointment dated 08.06.2018, issued after
a full selection process culminating in
BOM approval and duly accepted by the
petitioners, created a legitimate expectation
that they would be appointed. As held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: Food
6 All. Anand Singh Aswal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
165
Corporation of India vs. M/s Kamdhenu
Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71 in
paras-7,
8
and
10
that
legitimate
expectation arises from express promises or
consistent practices of public bodies. While
not an absolute right to appointment, this
expectation cannot be defeated arbitrarily
or without adhering to principles of fairness
and reasonableness. The opposite parties
arbitrary
withdrawal,
without
demonstrating
any
overriding
public
interest or following affair procedure,
violates
the
petitioners'
legitimate
expectation engendered by its own actions.

22. The doctrine of promissory
estoppel is squarely applicable to this case.
The opposite parties made a clear and
unequivocal promise through its Offer of
Appointment (08.06.2018), intending the
petitioners to act upon it. The petitioners
acted upon this promise by accepting the
offer as on 19.06.2018 and 13.06.2018 and
consequently waiting for the joining date,
potentially foregoing other employment
opportunities during this period, thereby
altering their position. As law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: M/s
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd .vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCC
409 in para-8 onwards where one party
makes a promise on which the other party
acts to his detriment, the promisor is
estopped from going back on the promise,
especially when acting as a state entity. The
opposite parties are thus estopped from
arbitrarily resiling from its promise to
appoint the petitioners.

23. In the light of the above
submissions, clarifying the factual position
and elaborating on the applicable legal
principles and precedents, it is reiterated
that the impugned order dated 27.11.2019
and the underlying resolutions dated
31.10.2018 and 20.08.2019, cited by
opposite parties are illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory, violative of natural justice
and the petitioners' legitimate expectation,
constitute a breach of contract, are barred
by promissory estoppel, and are there for
liable to be quashed.

24.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners have vehemently submitted that
the
respondent-University
should
be
precluded from citing its own alleged
internal procedural irregularity as a ground
to invalidate the Offer of Appointment
issued to and accepted by the petitioners,
based on principles analogous to the
Doctrine of Indoor Management (Turquand
Rule). While originating in Company Law,
its underlying principle protecting innocent
outsiders dealing with an entity based on its
outward
representations
is
rooted
in
fairness and estoppel, making it relevant
here.

25.
The
petitioners
were
an
outsider engaging with the University via
its official recruitment process. The Offer
of Appointment (08.06.2018), issued after
BOM approval (30.01.2018), represented
that necessary formalities were complete.
The petitioners acted in good faith on this
representation and had no means or duty to
investigate the internal composition of the
selection committee or its compliance with
internal MOUs - matters of indoor
management.
The
core
principle,
recognized in Indian jurisprudence as held
in re: Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co.
Ltd., Kanpur vs. J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd.,
Kanpur AIR 1957 All 311 vide para-13 is
that an outsider acting in good faith is
entitled to assume internal procedures have
been complied with. Further, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has applied such protective
principles to public bodies. In Chairman &
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
MD, BPL Ltd. vs. S.P. Gururaja and
others, (2003) 8 SCC 567, the Court noted
an allottee couldn't be expected to know of
internal procedural irregularities. Similarly,
the petitioners cannot be penalised for the
University's
alleged
internal
lapse
regarding committee formation.

26. Therefore, learned counsel for
the petitioners have submitted that allowing
the University to retract its formal Offer
based on its own alleged internal lapse,
unknown to the petitioner, is grossly
inequitable. This aligns with promissory
estoppel principles as held in Motilal
Padampat Sugar Mills (supra); MRF Ltd.
vs. Manohar Parrikar and others, (2010)
11 SCC 374 where public bodies cannot
arbitrarily resile from representations acted
upon in good faith. The University, having
held out the appointment as valid, should
be estopped from citing its internal
irregularity
consistent
with
principles
protecting bonafide outsiders.

27. The learned counsel for the
respondents
has
contended
that
the
petitioners have filed the present petitions
seeking
to
quash
the
order
dated
27.11.2019 issued by opposite party No. 4,
which
rescinded
the
petitioners'
appointment offer. However, in the first
writ petition, the petitioner has not
contested the resolution dated 31.10.2018
passed by opposite party No. 5, which
initially decided to cancel the appointment
offer. The petitioner has only challenged
the subsequent communication regarding the
withdrawal of the appointment offer, not the
primary order itself, rendering the writ
petition non maintainable and liable to be
dismissed on this basis alone. Though in the
second writ petition, the petitioner has also
challenged the resolution of the Board of
Management
dated
31.10.2018
and
confirmation of the Board order dated
20.08.2019 mentioned in the impugned order
dated 27.11.2019.

28. Furthermore, the learned counsel
stated that opposite party No. 6 through its
letter dated 23.07.2012, indicated that a
Memorandum of Understanding (here-inafter referred to as 'MOU') was signed on
02.02.2015 between the University Grants
Commission, the Consortium for Educational
Communication (here-in-after referred to as
'CEC'), and Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar
University,
Lucknow
(referred
to
as
'University') for the operation of the Media
Centre. According to Paragraph 2.3 of the
MOU, the Chairperson/Co-chairperson and at
least two external experts were required to
constitute the quorum of the selection
committee. However, upon review, it was
found that neither the Director of CEC
attended the Selection Committee meeting
nor did the Director or the Chairperson of the
Government Board of CEC nominate any
experts. Due to this procedural deficiency, the
opposite party No. 5 resolved to cancel the
appointment offer.

29. The learned counsel for the
respondents further contended that financial
assistance was to be provided by the opposite
party No. 6. The establishment of the Media
Centre was on a 'project mode,' for which
100% annual assistance was to be provided
by opposite party No. 6. As this assistance
was not provided, the entire project was
affected, leading to the withdrawal of the
offer letter dated 08.06.2018, following the
meeting of the Board of Management of the
opposite party Nos. 2 to 5.

30. The learned counsel for the
respondents further contended that the
petitioners are not entitled to their claim
solely based on the offer and acceptance of
6 All. Anand Singh Aswal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
167
appointment, as the appointment order was
not issued to them.

31. The learned counsel for the
respondents has thus submitted that in view
of the facts, circumstances and grounds
mentioned
above,
the
order
dated
27.11.2019 passed by opposite party No. 4,
which
withdrew
the
petitioners'
appointment, is correct and legally sound.
Therefore, there is no necessity for this
Hon'ble Court to intervene and it is
respectfully requested that this Hon'ble
Court may dismiss the writ petitions filed
by the petitioners with costs, in the interest
of justice.

32. In support of the aforesaid
contentions,
learned
counsel
for
the
opposite parties have placed reliance upon
the recent judgment of Apex Court
rendered in re: Tej Prakash Pathak and
others vs. Rajasthan High Court and
others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1
referring paras-63 and 64 thereof. In the
aforesaid paras, the Apex Court considered
the aspect to the effect that the appointment
may be denied even after placement in the
select list. In the aforesaid judgment, the
Apex Court considered and followed the
Constitution Bench judgment of Apex
Court rendered in re: Shankarsan Dash vs.
Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC
47. Paras-63 & 64 read as under:-

 "63. In Section (C) above, we
have already noticed the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in Shankarsan
Dash [Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India,
(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800]
where it was held : (SCC p. 51, para 7)

 "7.
...
Unless
the
relevant
recruitment rules so indicate, the State is
under no legal duty to fill up all or any of
the vacancies. However, it does not mean
that the State has the licence of acting in an
arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill
up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide
for appropriate reasons. And if the
vacancies or any of them are filled up, the
State is bound to respect the comparative
merit of the candidates, as reflected at the
recruitment test, and no discrimination can
be permitted."

 64. Thus, in light of the decision
in Shankarsan Dash [Shankarsan Dash v.
Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 800] , a candidate placed in the
select list gets no indefeasible right to be
appointed even if vacancies are available.
Similar was the view taken by this Court in
Subash Chander Marwaha [State of
Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha,
(1974) 3 SCC 220: 1973 SCC (L&S) 488]
where against 15 vacancies only top 7 from
the select list were appointed. But there is a
caveat. The State or its instrumentality
cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a
selected candidate. Therefore, when a
challenge is laid to State's action in respect
of denying appointment to a selected
candidate, the burden is on the State to
justify
its
decision
for
not
making
appointment from the select list."

33. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record as well as the judgments so cited
by the learned counsel for the parties.

34.
Notably,
the
Board
of
Management (BOM), which is a Highest
Executive Body, had given an approval on
30.01.2018 for consideration and approval
of selection, on the report of Selection
Committee, for the post of Producer and
the resolution to that effect was passed in
favour of the petitioners. The opposite
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party No.4 issued a memorandum on
08.06.2018 by means of which the
petitioners were offered appointment on the
post of Producer. Thereafter, the petitioners
sent the acceptance letter on 13.06.2018
along with attestation form sent by the
University. It has also been noted that the
petitioners
could
not
receive
any
communication for quite long time so the
petitioner in the first writ petition preferred
representation under RTI and the reminder
representations since February, 2019 till
passing of the impugned order dated
27.11.2019. Even no proper information
has been provided to the petitioner under
RTI inasmuch as the petitioner asked six
questions
relating
to
status
of
his
appointment
(petitioner
of
first
writ
petition), but they provided answers to four
questions, failed to answer question Nos. 5
& 6 whereby the question relating to
procedure
and
selection
process
for
appointment in question and the reason of
delay for more than fifteen months in
issuing a letter of appointment was asked.
The petitioner in the second writ petition
had earlier filed one writ petition and this
Court granted liberty to approach the
Competent
Authority
through
a
representation and direction was issued to
the authority to pass speaking and reasoned
order on that representation but impugned
order has been passed, which is a nonspeaking and un-reasoned order.

35. In the impugned order dated
27.11.2019, no reason of any kind
whatsoever has been given inasmuch as
only this much has been indicated that the
memorandum / offer of appointment for the
post of Producer is hereby withdrawn in
terms of resolution of Board dated
31.10.2018 confirmed in the meeting of
Board of Management of EMMRC held on
20.08.2019.
36. The manner under which the
impugned
order
dated
27.11.2019
withdrawing the offer of appointment has
been issued is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India inasmuch as it is a
settled law that the requirement to record
reasons is a fundamental principle of
natural justice which acts as a check against
arbitrary exercise of powers and ensures
fairness.
The
opposite
parties
acted
arbitrarily and in violation of principles of
natural justice. Considering the aforesaid
legal position, I am respectfully following
the dictums of Apex Court in re: E.P.
Royappa (supra) and Ramana Dayaram
Shetty (supra) and ABL International Ltd.
(supra).

37. I have also noted the fact that
before
withdrawing
the
offer
of
appointment of the petitioners for the post
of Producer, no opportunity of hearing has
been given to the petitioners whereas the
law is trite on the subject in re: Dr.
Binapani Dei (supra) and A.K. Kraipak
Vs. Union of India (supra) wherein the
Apex Court has held that if any action or
inaction of the authorities entail severe civil
consequences, impacting his/ her livelihood
or career, those inaction or action must be
in conformity with the principles of natural
justice.

38.