# Dr. Ankit Saran v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 362
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-14
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 24393 of 2016
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-ankit-saran-v-union-of-india-ors-52849
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Hem Pratap Singh, A.S.G.I., Ajeet Kumar
Singh, Anant Kumar Tiwari

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether the entire selection process can be
said to be fair and legal?
(b) Whether the petitioners have an absolute
right that selection procedure be concluded only
on the ground that they participated and have
faced Selection Committee?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - It is well settled that
selection ought to have been fair and
be conducted in terms of relevant
provisions, however, in the present
case,
recruitment
process
remained
defective, therefore, it was not a fair
selection as well as that petitioners
have no absolute right that such a
defective
recruitment
process
be
concluded. (Para 18)
11 All. Dr. Ankit Saran Vs. Union of India & Ors.
363
(a)
Since
composition
of
Selection
Committee was not in terms of Clauses of
Statute, therefore, such defect goes to
root of entire selection process, therefore,
it becomes illegal. (Para 17)

If composition of Selection Committee was itself
faulty, the same goes to root of selection
process that it got vitiated being de-hors of
Rules. In such cases, there was no need to refer
the matter to the Visitor. (Para 15)

(b) Petitioners have failed to point out that
Selection Committee were constituted in terms
of Statute. Petitioners have also failed to point
out that findings of fact in inquiry report so far
as faulty composition of Selection Committee
was perverse and, therefore, only on a
ground that petitioners have participated
and they have faced Selection Committee
does not confirm an absolute right that
selection procedure be concluded despite
there were errors which go to the root of case
i.e. composition of Selection Committee was not
in terms of relevant provisions. (Para 16)

B. There is no element of malafide in the
action of the respondent rather it was a
bonafide action on basis of material and
inquiry. While taking a decision not to continue
with earlier recruitment process, an opportunity
was granted to petitioners to participate in fresh
selection process and age relaxation was also
granted.
In
case
petitioners
have
not
participated in fresh selection process, they
have acted contrary to their own interest and
Court cannot come forward to help them in such
scenario. (Para 19, 20)

Recruitment process was found faulty and fresh
recruitment process was concluded, therefore,
interim orders passed in all writ petitions are
accordingly vacated. (Para 24)

Writ petitions dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entitled for the minimum wages under the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

12. Therefore, respondent No. 3
Regional
Ayurvedic/Unani
Officer,
Bahraich is directed to pay minimum
wages to the petitioner as notified under
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 with regard
to part-time sweepers within a period of
two months from the date a certified copy
of this order is placed before him."

24. In the overall conspectus of facts
while holding that the petitioners are parttime wagers and working as such in the
Police Stations Madanpur and Barrar
Narahat, District Lalitpur, it is also held
that they are entitled to be remunerated
according to the minimum wages notified
from time to time under the Act of 1948
and not in accordance with Government
Order dated 09.03.2019.

25. In the circumstances, this writ
petition succeeds and is allowed in part. A
mandamus is issued to the Director General
of
Police,
U.P.,
Lucknow,
the
Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, the
Station House Officers of Police Stations
Madanpur and Barrar Narahat, District
Lalitpur, to ensure amongst themselves
remuneration
to
the
petitioners
in
accordance with the Act of 1948, together
with arrears from the date of engagement
until payment of such arrears within a
period of six weeks of the date of receipt of
this order. It goes without saying that the
current wages shall be paid in accordance
with the Act of 1948, revised from time to
time in terms of the notifications issued
under the said Act.

26. There shall be no order as to costs.

27. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the Director General of
Police, U.P., Lucknow, the Superintendent
of Police, Lalitpur, the Station House
Officers of Police Stations Madanpur and
Barrar Narahat, District Lalitpur by the
Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 362
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 24393 of 2016
Connected with Writ A No. 19506 of 2016 &
other cases

Dr. Ankit Saran ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jitendra Sarin

Counsel for the Respondents:
Hem Pratap Singh, A.S.G.I., Ajeet Kumar
Singh, Anant Kumar Tiwari

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether the entire selection process can be
said to be fair and legal?
(b) Whether the petitioners have an absolute
right that selection procedure be concluded only
on the ground that they participated and have
faced Selection Committee?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - It is well settled that
selection ought to have been fair and
be conducted in terms of relevant
provisions, however, in the present
case,
recruitment
process
remained
defective, therefore, it was not a fair
selection as well as that petitioners
have no absolute right that such a
defective
recruitment
process
be
concluded. (Para 18)
11 All. Dr. Ankit Saran Vs. Union of India & Ors.
363
(a)
Since
composition
of
Selection
Committee was not in terms of Clauses of
Statute, therefore, such defect goes to
root of entire selection process, therefore,
it becomes illegal. (Para 17)

If composition of Selection Committee was itself
faulty, the same goes to root of selection
process that it got vitiated being de-hors of
Rules. In such cases, there was no need to refer
the matter to the Visitor. (Para 15)

(b) Petitioners have failed to point out that
Selection Committee were constituted in terms
of Statute. Petitioners have also failed to point
out that findings of fact in inquiry report so far
as faulty composition of Selection Committee
was perverse and, therefore, only on a
ground that petitioners have participated
and they have faced Selection Committee
does not confirm an absolute right that
selection procedure be concluded despite
there were errors which go to the root of case
i.e. composition of Selection Committee was not
in terms of relevant provisions. (Para 16)

B. There is no element of malafide in the
action of the respondent rather it was a
bonafide action on basis of material and
inquiry. While taking a decision not to continue
with earlier recruitment process, an opportunity
was granted to petitioners to participate in fresh
selection process and age relaxation was also
granted.
In
case
petitioners
have
not
participated in fresh selection process, they
have acted contrary to their own interest and
Court cannot come forward to help them in such
scenario. (Para 19, 20)

Recruitment process was found faulty and fresh
recruitment process was concluded, therefore,
interim orders passed in all writ petitions are
accordingly vacated. (Para 24)

Writ petitions dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Pramod Pathak Vs. Vice Chancellor, BHU,
Varanasi and others, 1985 SCC Online All 389
(Para 9)
2. State of Assam and others Vs. Arabinda
Rabha and others, 2025 INSC 334, (2025) 7
SCC 705 (Para 14)
List of Keywords
 interview,
selection,
recruitment,
process,
defective, root.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Jitendra Sarin
For Respondent(s):
Hem Pratap
Singh,
A.S.G.I., Ajeet Kumar Singh, Anant Kumar
Tiwari

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioners in present bunch of
matters have applied on different posts in
pursuance of a recruitment process initiated
on basis of Adv. No. 2/2013-14 issued by
respondent-University.

2. Petitioners have claimed that after
going through process of shortlisting,
objective
and
subjective
written
examination, they were qualified and called
for interview and Selection Committee
conducted interview of petitioners also.

3. It is further case of petitioners that
recruitment process was stalled on the basis
of a communication between the State and
University and a decision was taken not to
continue with recruitment process.

4.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
petitioners have filed present bunch of writ
petitions with a prayer that their results be
declared.

5. An interim order was passed by this
Court whereby it was directed that fresh
procedure can continue but it will remain
subject to outcome of present bunch of writ
petition and in one writ petition, a post was
also reserved.

6. During exchange of pleadings,
inquiry report dated 30.12.2015 is placed
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on record and a decision thereof taken by
Executive Council on 10.02.2016 is also
placed on record wherein it was resolved
that envelope containing recommendations
of Selection Committee held between
17.02.2014 and 15.06.2014 for direct
recruitment on vacant teaching, nonteaching and school teaching positions be
not opened and the post be advertised
afresh.

7. S/Sri Seemant Singh, Jitendra Sarin,
Rajesh Kumar Singh and Man Mohan
Singh, learned Advocates for petitioners in
bunch of petitions have submitted that
Executive Council was not empowered to
recommend not to open an envelope
containing recommendations of Selection
Committee.

8. Learned Advocates have also
referred paragraph 27(3) of Chapter II (The
Schedule) of Statute of the University
(BHU) that "In case they (Executive
Council) were unable to accept any
recommendation
made
by
Selection
Committee, it shall record its reasons and
forward case to Visitor for orders".

9. In support of their submissions,
learned advocates for petitioners have
placed reliance upon a judgment of this
Court
in
Pramod
Pathak
vs.
Vice
Chancellor, BHU, Varanasi and others,
1985 SCC Online All 389.

10. Per contra, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
H.P. Singh, learned counsel for B.H.U. and
Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
for Union of India have opposed above
submissions and have submitted that for
appointment
of
Professor,
Associate
Professor,
Assistant
Professor
and
Teaching posts as well as Registrar,
Controller of Examination and Librarian,
details
of
Selection
Committee
are
provided and for reference, table is quoted
below :-

27.(1) ....

(b) Every Selection Committee
shall consists of the Vice-Chancellor who
shall be the Chairman thereof and a person
nominated by the Visitor, and, in addition,
the
Selection
Committee
for
making
recommendations for appointment to a post
specified in column (1) of the Table below
shall have as its members the persons
specified in the corresponding entry in
column (2) of the said Table.

Table
(1)
(2)
Professor62
(1) The Dean of the Faculty
concerned,
provided
he
is
a
Professor, except in cases where they
are applicants or when the post held
by them is being filled up.
(2)
The
Head
of
the
Deptt.
Concerned,
provided
he
is
a
Professor, except in cases where they
are applicants or when the post held
by them is being filled up.
(3) Not less than three persons not
being in the service of the University
or member of the Ex. Council who
have special knowledge of the
subject with which the person to be
appointed will be concerned, to be
nominated by the Executive Council.
Associate
Professor/
Assistant
Professor63
and Teaching
post
(1) The Dean of the Faculty
concerned; (2) The Head of the
department concerned post
(3) Not less than two persons not
being in the service of the University
or members of the Ex. Council who
have special knowledge of the
subject with which the person to be
appointed will be concerned, to be
nominated by the Executive Council.
Registrar/
Controller
of
Examinations

Three members of the Executive
Council nominated by it.
Librarian
Not less than three persons not being
in the service of the University or
members of the Executive Council
who have special knowledge of the
subject of Library Science to be
11 All. Dr. Ankit Saran Vs. Union of India & Ors.
365
nominated by the Executive Council.

11.
Learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing for respondent-University has
also submitted that details of inquiry report
that
Selection
Committee
was
not
constituted in terms of above referred
details and relevant part thereof is quoted
below :-

On detailed examination of the
individual cases of selection the following
were found deficient in complying with the
due provisions of the rules:

Sl.
No
.
Details of the
Posts
Date
of
SCM

Remarks, if any
1.
Veterinary
&
Animal
Sciences, RGSC
Direct Posts

a)
Professor
(Animal Phy.) -
01 (General)
b)
Assistant
Professor
(Vet.
Anatomy)
-01
(OBC)
c)
Assistant
Professor
(Pharmacology
&
Toxicology)-01
(General)
d) Assistant
Professor
(Vet.
Pathology)-01
(SC)
e)
Assistant
Professor (Vet.
Parasitology)-01
(General)
f) Assistant
Professor (Vet.
Gen.
&
Breeding)
-01 (General)
g)
Assistant
Professor
(Livestock
Production Mgt.)
-01 (OBC)

14.06.201
4
1.
Visitor's
approval
for
creation
of
Faculty
of
Veterinary and
Animal
Sciences in the
Institute
of
Agricultural
Sciences of the
University was
not
received.
Yet
recruitments in
the
proposed
Faculty
of
Veterinary and
Animal
Sciences
were
made.
2. No Visitor's
Nominee for the
Faculty
was
thus nominated
and
Visitor's
Nominee
for
Faculty
of
Agriculture was
associated in the
selection
committees for
the
posts
earmarked
for
the
proposed
Faculty
of
Veterinary and
Animal
Sciences.
He
did
not
participate
in
the meetings but
had given his
consent.
If the posts were
taken
as
belonging
to
Institute
of
Agricultural
Sciences
then
the
Dean,
Faculty
of
Agriculture
should
have
been associated
in the Selection
Committee
which was not
done.
2.
RGSC
Direct Post
Director (Tenure
appointment)
01 (General)
Advt.No.3/201314

15.06.201
4

1.Post
of
Director, RGSC
was advertised
in the scale of
Professor
and
with
the
Qualification
for the post of
Professor.
The
Selection
Committee was
chaired
by
Dean,
Faculty
of Science and
Director,
Institute
of
Agricultural
Sciences along
with
three
Experts
as
members.
There was no
Visitor's
Nominee in the
selection
committee
whereas
every
selection
committee
for
appointment of
teachers
must
have a Visitor's
nominee.
Moreover
the
selection
committee was
not chaired by
the
ViceChancellor who
is the Chairman
of all selection
committee
for
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
teaching
and
Group 'A' non-
teaching post.
2. Appointment
of Directors of
Institutes of the
university
is
made
by
the
Executive
Council on the
recommendatio
n of the ViceChancellor from
amongst
the
professors
of
the
respective
Institutes.
RGSC is not an
Institute of the
University.

3.
SS Hospital
Direct Post
a)
Medical
Officer
(PSM)
01
(General)
a)
Medical
Officer (PSM)-
01
(General)
b)
Medical
Officer (Obst. &
Gynae.)
- 01 (General)
c ) Dy. Medical
Superintendent
(MM)-01 (Gen)
d)
Medical
Officer
(MM)-01 (SC)
e)
Medical
Officer
(Anaesthesiolog
y )-01 (Gen) &
01 (SC)
g)
Nursing
Superintendent
- 01 (General)
RTRM, Faculty
of Medicine
Direct Post
Radiological
Safety
Officer
01 (General)
Prasuti
Tantra
Faculty
of
Ayurveda Direct
Post
Medical Officer
(Prasuti Tantra)-
01(SC)
28.05.201
4

1. Though the
Director,
IMS
and
Registrar
are members of
the
selection
committee, for
the
posts
of
Medical
Officer, Deputy
Medical
Superintendent,
Nursing
Superintendent,
and
Radiological
Safety
Officer
but they were
not present in
the
Selection
Committee
meetings.

Administrative
Sector
Direct Post
Assistant
Registrar
-01(Gen.) & 02
(OBC)

2. The Registrar
was not present
in the Selection
Committee
meeting for the
post
of
Assistant
Registrar
though he is a
member of the
Selection
Committee.

04.

SS Hospital
Ward Sahayak/
Shayika
05
(Gen);
04
(SC);
02 (ST) & 11
(OBC)

11.06.201
4
&
12.06.201
4

For 65 Group
'C' & 'D' posts
in
SSH,
944
candidates were
called appeared
for
interview
and
the
selection
process
was
completed
in
four days. This
means
around
236 candidates
on an average
were
interviewed per
day.
This
is
neither
practically
possible nor is
justifiable
in
any
sincere
assessment
of
the competence
and
suitability
of persons to be
recruited
and
gives rise to the
to believe that
reason
proper
attempt
was
made
for
conscious
and
serious
assessment
of
the
candidates
for
their
competence and
suitability
for
appointment to
these posts.

Sterilization
Assistant
01 (General)

12.06.201
4

Stretcher Bearer-
01(Gen); 01(SC)
&
01(ST)

12.06.201
4

Jr. Assistant
(Medical
Record)-
01 (General)

12.06.201
4

Technical
Assistant
(MRI)-
01
(Gen.)

12.06.201
4

Lift Operator-01
(General)

12.06.201
4

Care Taker Gr.
I-
01 (OBC)

12.06.201
4

Staff Nurse-31
(Gen); 02 (SC),
&
02 (OBC)

13.06.201
4
&
14.06.201
4

12. Learned Senior Advocate has also
referred recommendations of Committee
which are quoted below :-
11 All. Dr. Ankit Saran Vs. Union of India & Ors.
367

"The committee finds that though
the persons who may have been selected for
the above posts of direct recruitment, as
per the recommendations of the selection
committees, do not have any right to be
appointed to the said posts. Nevertheless,
University cannot refuse to consider the
eligible candidates. Thus, the field of
competition grows every year thereby
making the inter se competition amongst
the eligible candidates tougher and at the
same time broadens the sphere of choice of
brighter candidates for selection and
recruitment to this premier institution of
national importance. In such situation
it is in the interest of this institution as
well as in larger public Interest that the
recommendations of the above selection
committees, which have now become
stale after lapse of more than one and a
half years, should not be considered on
the
merits
of
the
recommendations/selections but all the
above posts be re advertised as quickly
as possible. If the university adopts this
suggested course no one would be the
loser for the candidates who were
applicants for the said posts can again
apply to be considered pursuant to the
fresh advertisement and thus compete
with the newer batch of applicants.
Only, care has to taken in the fresh
advertisement that such candidates do
not suffer on account of age bar or
other eligibility condition.

In the light of the aforesaid the
committee is of considered opinion that the
recommendations of selection committees
referred to above are not actable.

Recommendation:

Based on aforesaid observation
the Committee arrived at the following
conclusion:

(i) There is a general convention
in the institutions of Government of India
that Head of the Institutions do not make
recruitments during the last 3 months of
their tenure. The DOPT, Govt. of India has
notified it many times to the Head of the
Institutions
to
refrain
from
making
recruitment during the last 3 months of
their tenure. This convention has been
followed in the Banaras Hindu University
also in the past. However, despite the
directions of the MHRD to the contrary the
then Vice-Chancellor continued to make
recruitment during the last 3 months of his
tenure. The MHRD then had to direct the
Registrar,
BHU
not
to
place
the
recommendations before the Executive
Council for their approval.

(ii) Discrepancies in the due
process of selection as noted above have
been found in the selections made during
the period. These relate to direct selections
and constitute part of terms of reference of
Fact Finding Committee also.

(III) As per provisions of the rules
panel of names recommended by the
selection committees remain valid for a
period of one year on their approval by the
Executive Council. The recruitments under
reference were made during the period
from 17.02.2014 to 15.06.2014 i.e., more
than 1% years have passed since then.
Taking the same analogy it can reasonably
be concluded that these recommendations
have since outlived their period of validity
and have become stale. Moreover many
new candidates may have become eligible
for appointment to these posts during this
period.

The recommendations of the
selection committees are not actable and
thus in the fitness of the things and keeping
in view the larger interest of the institution
and larger public interest it is advisable not
to
open
the
envelopes
containing
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recommendations
of
the
selection
committees for direct recruitment. The
vacancies be advertised afresh quickly and
the current applicants be also considered
along with the new ones who apply. They
need not apply again however, they may
update
their
biodata.
Such
current
applicants may be provided relaxation in
age and other eligibility requirement if
passage of time had rendered them
ineligible for the post and no fee be
charged from such applicants.

(iv)
The
selections
under
reference
include
the
promotions
of
teachers to next higher grade under Career
Advancement
Scheme
in
which
the
candidates in question is promoted by
upgrading his/her own post without the
requirement of vacancy and on the
recommendation of selection committee
i.e., there is no open competition in this
scheme and promotions are made on
personal basis and are effected from the
due
date
of
eligibility,
invariably
retrospectively. The same person will be
assessed by selection committee even if the
promotions are made afresh. So there is no
staleness in these recommendations of
selection committee for promotion of
teachers under CAS nor there would be any
new candidate who has become eligible to
compete with by the passage of time. Hence
the recommendations of the selection
committee for promotion of teachers under
CAS may be opened if the due processes of
selection have been followed."

13.
I
have
considered
above
submissions and perused the records.

14.
Before
adverting
to
rival
submissions, this Court takes note of a
recent judgment of Supreme Court passed
in State of Assam and others vs.
Arabinda Rabha and others, 2025 INSC
334, (2025) 7 SCC 705 wherein Supreme
Court has made following observations :-

22. It would be profitable to note
the precedents in the field having a bearing
on the questions arising for decision in the
appeal, before we venture to answer the
questions formulated above. In our view,
these could provide valuable guidance to
steer us towards the right direction.

23. In State of Haryana v. Subash
Chander Marwaha [State of Haryana v.
Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC
220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] , this Court
held that the mere fact of certain
candidates being selected for appointment
to vacancies pursuant to an advertisement
did not confer any right to be appointed on
the post in question and thereby, entitle the
selectees to a writ of mandamus or any
other writ compelling the authority to make
the appointment.

24. The Constitution Bench in
Shankarsan Dash [Shankarsan Dash v.
Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 800] considered the aforesaid
decision and, taking cue from it, held that :
(SCC pp. 50-51, para 7)

"7. It is not correct to say that if
a number of vacancies are notified for
appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful
candidates acquire an indefeasible right to
be appointed which cannot be legitimately
denied. Ordinarily the notification merely
amounts to an invitation to qualified
candidates to apply for recruitment and on
their selection they do not acquire any right
to the post. 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
11 All. Dr. Ankit Saran Vs. Union of India & Ors.
369
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."

25. Close on the heels of the
above decision, a three-Judge Bench in Jai
Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana [Jai Singh
Dalal v. State of Haryana, 1993 Supp (2)
SCC 600 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 846] had the
occasion to observe : (SCC p. 606, para 7)

"7. ... It will thus be seen that at
the time when the writ petition which has
given rise to the present proceedings was
filed, the State Government had withdrawn
the aforesaid two notifications by the
Notification dated 30-12-1991. The stage at
which the last-mentioned notification came
to be issued was the stage when the HPSC
was still in the process of selecting
candidates for appointment by special
recruitment. During the pendency of the
present
proceedings
the
State
Government finalised the criteria for
special recruitment by the Notification
of 9-3-1992. Thus, the HPSC was still in
the process of selecting candidates and
had yet not completed and finalised the
select list nor had it forwarded the same
to
the
State
Government
for
implementation.
The
candidates,
therefore, did not have any right to
appointment. There was, therefore, no
question of the High Court granting a
mandamus or any other writ of the type
sought by the appellants. The law in this
behalf appears to be well settled."

26. Having noticed the decisions
on the point as to the rights that aspiring
candidates have, we move on to notice a
decision which is not only on the point of
right of a selected candidate to seek
appointment through writ remedy but also
dwells with the decisions of subsequent
Governments upsetting the decisions of
earlier Governments.

27. One finds an extensive
discussion on the tests required to be
satisfied to invalidate a decision of a
subsequent
Government,
nullifying
a
previous government decision, in Jitendra
Kumar v. State of Haryana [Jitendra
Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC
161 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 428] . The case
involved suspension of the process of
selection by the Government because, inter
alia, the cadre strength was found to be
unjustly
inflated
by
the
previous
Government. The appellants before this
Court indisputably were the selected
candidates and the principal question
arising for decision, in the given facts and
circumstances, was whether they had a
legal right to be appointed. This Court held
: (SCC p. 178, para 42)

"42.
The
legal
principle
obtaining herein is not in dispute that the
selectees do not have any legal right of
appointment subject, inter alia, to bona
fide action on the part of the State."

(emphasis supplied)

28. Noticing the decisions in
Subash Chander Marwaha [State of
Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha,
(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488]
,Shankarsan Dash [Shankarsan Dash v.
Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 800] as well as other decisions
on the point, this Court in Jitendra Kumar
[Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana,
(2008) 2 SCC 161 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S)
428] further held that whereas the selectee
as such has no legal right, the superior
court in exercise of its judicial review
would not ordinarily direct issuance of any
writ in the absence of any pleading and
proof of mala fide or arbitrariness on the
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
part of the authority, and each case has to
be considered on its own merit. Examining
the point as to whether the impugned action
of the respondent State lacked bona fide,
this Court answered in the negative.
Finally, this is what was observed :
(Jitendra Kumar case [Jitendra Kumar v.
State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 161 :
(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 428] , SCC pp. 18283, paras 55-57)

"55. We are not oblivious of the
constitutional scheme that the decisions
taken by one Government in public interest
itself cannot be a ground for review thereof
at the hands of the successor Government.
It is not the Government which is in the
seat of the power, matters in this behalf,
but what matters is the public interest.

56. Mr Dwivedi has drawn our
attention to a decision of this Court in State
of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers
Organisation [State of Karnataka v. All
India Manufacturers Organisation, (2006)
4 SCC 683] wherein it was held : (SCC pp.
708-709, para 66)

'66. Taking an overall view of the
matter, it appears that there could hardly
be a dispute that the Project is a mega
project which is in the larger public
interest of the State of Karnataka and
merely because there was a change in the
Government, there was no necessity for
reviewing all decisions taken by the
previous Government, which is what
appears to have happened. That such an
action cannot be taken every time there is a
change of Government has been clearly
laid down in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal
[State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC
714] and in State of Haryana v. State of
Punjab [State of Haryana v. State of
Punjab, (2002) 2 SCC 507] where this
Court observed thus : (State of Haryana
case [State of Haryana v. State of Punjab,
(2002) 2 SCC 507] , SCC p. 538, para 16)

"16. ... [I]n the matter of
governance of a State or in the matter of
execution of a decision taken by a previous
Government, on the basis of a consensus
arrived at, which does not involve any
political
philosophy,
the
succeeding
Government must be held duty-bound to
continue and carry on the unfinished job
rather than putting a stop to the same."

57. There cannot be any doubt in
regard to the aforementioned proposition
of law but the question herein is whether
public interest would be subserved by
asking the State to proceed to make
appointments. Whereas, on the one hand,
an action on the part of the State to
interfere with the good work done by the
previous Government solely on the basis of
change in the regime must be deprecated,
there cannot however be any doubt
whatsoever that the successor Government
cannot blink over the illegalities committed
by the previous Government. If illegalities
have been committed, the same should be
rectified. When there exists a reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the State,
having regard to the overall situation
including the post-haste manner in which
actions had been taken, to cause an inquiry
to be made and suspend the process of
making appointments till the result of such
inquiry is obtained, such a decision on its
part per se cannot be said to be an act of
arbitrariness or unreasonableness."

29. It has not escaped our notice
that the decision in Jitendra Kumar
[Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana,
(2008) 2 SCC 161 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S)
428] has been doubted in All India Railway
Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar [All
India Railway Recruitment Board v. K.
Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614 : (2010)
2 SCC (L&S) 293] on the point as to
whether
Wednesbury[Associated
Provincial
Picture
Houses
Ltd.
v.
11 All. Dr. Ankit Saran Vs. Union of India & Ors.
371
Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223
(CA)] unreasonableness has been replaced
by the doctrine of proportionality. The facts
in K. Shyam Kumar [All India Railway
Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar,
(2010) 6 SCC 614 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S)
293] bear close resemblance to the facts of
the present appeal and, thus, may be
noticed. Therein, the Railway Recruitment
Board (RRB) had called for applications
for appointments on Group D posts in the
South-Central
Railway
Zone,
Secunderabad. Consequently, in excess of
three lakh candidates appeared for the
written examination. Of them, ten short of
two thousand seven hundred candidates
having achieved the minimum qualifying
marks in the written examination, were
called for a PET. Candidates who qualified
in the PET were called for verification,
during which certain malpractices were
detected
in
the
written
examination.
Additionally, there was a deluge of
allegations of mass copying, question
paper
leakage,
and
impersonation
committed during the written examination.
A vigilance enquiry was conducted and the
report
prima
facie
revealed
these
abovementioned illegalities. Relying on the
vigilance report, the RRB decided to
conduct a re-test of the candidates who had
obtained the minimum qualifying marks in
the written examination. This decision was
challenged by some candidates before the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Hyderabad. The Tribunal did not find any
irregularity or illegality with the decision
of the RRB, due to which the candidates
were constrained to move the High Court.
Before the High Court, the candidates
termed the decision of the RRB as arbitrary
and unreasonable. The High Court agreed
with the candidates and set aside the order
directing the re-test as, in the High Court's
opinion, the decision was unreasonable
and
violative
of
the
Wednesbury
[Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd.
v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223
(CA)] principles. The RRB approached this
Court in appeal."

15. Petitioners have argued that power
to not to accept recommendation of
Selection Committee was with Visitor and
Executive Council has no power, however,
Court is of the view that if composition of
Selection Committee was itself faulty, the
same goes to root of selection process that
it got vitiated being de-hors of Rules. In
such cases, there was no need to refer the
matter to the Visitor.

16. Petitioners have failed to point out
that Selection Committee were constituted
in terms of Statute. Petitioners have also
failed to point out that findings of fact in
inquiry report so far as faulty composition
of Selection Committee was perverse and,
therefore, only on a ground that petitioners
have participated and they have faced
Selection Committee does not confirm an
absolute right that selection procedure be
concluded despite there were errors which
go to the root of case i.e. composition of
Selection Committee was not in terms of
relevant provisions.

17.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
without any dispute and without any much
objection or any contrary argument, since
composition of Selection Committee was
not in terms of above referred Clauses of
Statute, therefore, such defect goes to root
of entire selection process, therefore, it
becomes illegal.

18. It is well settled that selection
ought to have been fair and be conducted in
terms of relevant provisions, however, as
referred above, in the present case,
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recruitment process remained defective,
therefore, it was not a fair selection as well
as that petitioners have no absolute right
that such a defective recruitment process be
concluded.

19. Court also takes note that while
taking a decision not to continue with
earlier recruitment process, an opportunity
was granted to petitioners to participate in
fresh selection process and age relaxation
was also granted, however, it is not on
record
whether
petitioners
have
participated or not, though a specific
opportunity was granted.

20. In case petitioners have not
participated in fresh selection process, they
have acted contrary to their own interest
and Court cannot come forward to help
them in such scenario. There is no element
of malafide in the action of the respondent
rather it was a bonafide action on basis of
material and inquiry.

21. The judgment relied upon by
learned Advocates for petitioners would not
be
helpful
to
their
case
as
it
is
distinguishable on facts whereas law
discussed in State of Assam vs. Arabinda
Rabha (supra) is squarely applicable being
against the petitioners. Vice Chancellor has
conducted the recruitment process where he
was going to retire in 3 months was an
additional reason for above decision.

22. In view of above, prayer sought in
present bunch of writ petitions cannot be
allowed, hence, they are rejected.

23. In overall circumstances, all writ
petitions are dismissed.

24. Recruitment process was found
faulty and fresh recruitment process was
concluded, therefore, interim orders passed
in all writ petitions are accordingly vacated.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 372
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ B No. 42 of 2015 connected cases

Tarawati & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jagdish Prasad Maurya, Bajrangi lal Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, Kunwar Ravi
Prakash, Umesh Kumar Tiwari, Yogendra
Nath Yadav

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
(i) Whether the petitioners could get any benefit
of the order dated 30.03.1966 passed by the
Forest Settlement Officer; (ii) Whether the entry
in revenue records of land in issue i.e. Gata/Plot
No. 1176Ba (now 1209) of 1359 Fasli (C.E.
1952), according to which Gulab Chand was
'Sirdar' of this land, is genuine; and (iii) Whether
the petitioners are entitled to any relief based
upon the 'Bhoodan Lekh(s)/Gift Deed(s)' dated
26.03.1958.

HEADNOTE
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Ss. 9A(2), 49 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - S.20(b) - U.P. Bhoodan
Yagna Act, 1952 (U.P. Act No. X of 1953) -
Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Writ petitions
challenging orders of Consolidation Officer dated
13.01.1994, Settlement Officer of Consolidation
dated 07.06.2003 and Deputy Director of
Consolidation dated 25.02.2005 - Claim of
petitioners based on alleged donation of land by
Gulab Chand to Bhoodan Yagna Samiti and
execution of 'Bhoodan Lekh(s)/Gift Deed(s)'