Pranav Kumar Roy vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1656 Jhar

                                          1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W.P.(S) No. 1214 of 2021
     1.     Pranav Kumar Roy
     2.     Santosh Kumar
     3.     Manoj Kumar Gupta
     4.     Prabhu Prakash Oraon
     5.     Amit Kumar Jha
     6.     Sujeet Kumar
     7.     Anand Kishor Dangi
     8.     Rajesh Kumar Mahto
     9.     Wakil Yadav                    ....                      ...     Petitioners
                                     Versus
     1.     The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at
     Project Bhawan, Ranchi
     2.     The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
     and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi
     3.     The Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman, Circular
     Road, Ranchi
     4.     The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Ranchi
     5.     The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi,
     Circular Road, Ranchi                                  ...    ..... Respondents

                                         With
                               W.P.(S) No. 1186 of 2021
     1.    Praveen Kujur
     2.    Atikur Rahman
     3.    Kaushalesh Kumar
     4.    Vijay Kumar Sharma
     5.    Pradeep Kumar Pathak
     6.    Prashant Kumar
     7.    Kuldeep Mahota           ....                     ...      Petitioners
                                    Versus
     1.    The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at
           Project Bhawan, Ranchi
     2.    The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
           and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi
     3.    The Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman, Circular
           Road, Ranchi
     4.    The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Ranchi
     5.    The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi,
           Circular Road, Ranchi                     ...   ..... Respondents

                            ------

     CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
                 (Through Video Conferencing)

                               -----
     For Petitioners          : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
                               Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
     For Respondent-State     : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG
     For JPSC                   Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
                                       ---

03/ 07.04.2021 Since the common issues are involved in these writ petitions and as such, these are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. In the both the writ petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:

a. for quashing of the Advertisement No.01/2021 (Annexure-7) published on 08.02.2021 in so far as the condition contained in Clause-4 with respect to fixation of cut-off date i.e. 01.08.2016 for counting of upper age limit of the candidates and inclusion of the examination of the year, 2017, 2018 and 2019 is concerned.

b. For quashing the resolution contained in Memo No. 805 dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure-6), whereby and whereunder the Respondents have most arbitrarily prescribed 01.08.2016 as the cut-off date for counting the upper age limit of the candidates who were supposed to be applicants as against the Advertisement No.01/2020 for 2017, 2018 and 2019 CCS examinations in which the said cut-off date was fixed as 01.08.2011. c. For showing cause the respondents as to how and under what circumstances the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021 (Annexure-5) can be made applicable to the vacancies of the year, 2017, 2018 and 2019 and for the examinations to be held for the said years particularly when the advertisement No. 01/2020 for that purpose was also published.

d. For commanding the respondents to show cause as to why and under what circumstances the Advertisement No. 01/2020, which was issued for conducting the Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination for the year, 2017, 2018, and 2019, wherein the cut-off date for counting the maximum age/upper age limit was fixed as 01.08.2011, has been withdrawn /recalled to replace it with another Advertisement No.01/2021 for the same years i.e., 2017, 2018, 2019 and one added year i.e. 2020 with a new condition for fixing the cut-off date for counting the maximum age/ upper age limit as 01.08.2016, which is thoroughly illegal, arbitrary, irrational and having no nexus with any positive object to be achieved and further considering the fact that the respondents did not conduct the examinations on annual basis i.e. in the year, 2017, 2018 and 2019 for which the petitioners cannot be faulted in any manner.

e. For directing the respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Court the entire file pertaining to the decision making process with respect to the recall/ withdrawal of the Advertisement No.01/2020 and also pertaining to the issuance of Advertisement No.01/2021 with the fixation of the new cut-off dates which cannot in any manner be held to be justified because the respondents cannot be allowed to sustain change in policy in such a quick consequence unless they establish a positive reason and legitimate object sought to be achieved by bringing about such variance which is to a serious detriment of the petitioners and many other similarly situated candidates,

who had every legitimate expectations to participate at the Combined Civil Service Competitive Examination of the State which is going to be held after a gap of about five years from the last examination.

f. For directing the respondents either to not club the examinations of the years, 2017, 2018 and 2019 with the current year examinations (2020) and prescribe the cut-off date accordingly for both the examinations separately or, alternative prescribe the cut-off date in such a manner so as to fulfill the legitimate expectations of the candidates who remained waiting for non- conducting of the examinations for no fault of them.

3. The short facts lying in narrow compass is that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission floated an Advertisement being Advertisement No.01/2020, invited applications for appointment on various posts with respect to the Combined Civil Services Vacancies of the year, 2017, 2018 and 2019 in different departments of the State Government, wherein under Clause-4 the cut-off date for calculation of upper age limit of a candidate of Combined Civil Services 2017, 2018 and 2019 shall be 01.08.2011. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 vide press release notified the date for filing the online application i.e. from 01.03.2020 to 30.03.2020. It is further the case of the petitioners that they are aspirants of the JPSC CCS Examination, 2017, 2018 and 2019 and fulfilled all the requirements of the said advertisement for filling of the application form. But, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 28.02.2020 requested the respondent No.4 for cancellation of the said Advertisement and as such, vide press release issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the CCS Examination-2017, 2018 and 2019 was cancelled in light of the above letter. Thereafter, Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021 has been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the same was published in the Extraordinary Gazette No.59 dated 22.01.2021. In Section 4 of the said Rule, 2021 provide that commission shall announce vacancies in accordance with the requisitions received from the concerned cadre controlling department each years to be filled by direct recruitment and CCS Examination shall be held every year and in case the exam is not held in any particular year due to unforeseen reasons, then the Commission will hold the Examinations for two (or more) years together by clubbing the vacancies. Clause 6 of the said rules also provides for the maximum and minimum age of the candidates. It is further the case of the petitioners that vide Memo No.805 dated 05.02.2021 was issued by the respondent No.2 enunciating the policy for determination of the cut-off date for calculating maximum and minimum age limit for the forthcoming CCS Examination and the same was published in the extraordinary Gazette No.95 dated 06.02.2021. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 published an Advertisement being Advertisement No. 01/2021 invited applications for

appointment to various post with respect to the combined civil services vacancies of the year, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 in different Departments of the Government, wherein under Clause 4 stipulated that the cut-off date for calculation of upper age limit of a candidate of Combined Civil Services 2017, 2018 and 2019 shall be 01.08.2016 in light of the Resolution No. 805 dated 05.02.2021 and Clause-5 of the said Advertisement provide that the upper age limit of unserved and economically weaker section candidate is 35 years. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners, who are aspirants of CCS Examination and have crossed the upper age limit as per the new cut-off date and are no longer eligible to apply or fill the form for 7th CCS Examination, represented before the respondents, but no heed was paid. Hence, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Vikash Kumar appearing for the petitioners vociferously argues that the decision of the respondents to change in the cut-off date for calculating upper age limit from 01.08.2011 to 01.08.2016 is arbitrary, illegal, malafide and without any reasons. The petitioners who are aspirants of the CCS Examination have crossed the upper age limit as per the new cut-off date and are no longer eligible to apply or fill the form for 7th CCS Examination without their mistake. Learned Sr. counsel further argues that the respondent-authorities published the new Advertisement No.01/2021 after withdrawing the earlier advertisement, changing the cut-off date for calculation of maximum age limit without giving any reason and without any application of mind. The respondents failed to conduct regular CCS examinations, as a result of which the candidates including the petitioners could not appear in the examination at the correct age. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that the change in cut-off date that too for vacancies arising from last four years is arbitrary and the same cannot be allowed as it leads to gross injustice for the candidates, who were well within the zone for submitting application for the 7th JPSC Examination and as such, the Advertisement No. 01/2021 as well as Resolution contained in Memo NO. 805 dated 05.02.2021 prescribing the new cut off date for counting the maximum age of the candidates may be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that issues involved in these writ petitions have already been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in its judgment delivered on 15.03.2021 in W.P.(C) No.864 of 2021 and since the Hon'ble Court has dismissed the said writ application, these cases may also be dismissed in view of the observations made in W.P.(C) No.864 of 2021.

6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere and

accede to the prayer of the petitioners as the similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.864 of 2021 and vide order dated 15.03.2021, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was of the view that:-

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners are aggrieved with Clause 4 of the Advertisement No. 01/2021, whereby the cut-off date of upper age limit for the candidates of Jharkhand Combined Civil Service Competitive Examination-2021 has been fixed as 01.08.2016 in consonance with the notification dated 05.02.2021 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that fixing of the upper age limit is without any basis and thereby the petitioners have been deprived of participating in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination-2021 as they will be overage.

7. So far the fixing of cut-off date for computation of upper age limit in the Advertisement No. 1/2021 is concerned, I have gone through the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of "Krishna Kumar Mishra" (supra) as cited by the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the JPSC, wherein after citing several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the scope of the writ court to interfere with the decision of the State/authority in fixing the cut-off date for computation of age limit, the law has been summarized as under:

Summary of principles:

XXVIII. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the law can be summarized as under:

(i) The choice of date as a basis for classification fixed by the legislature or its delegate cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary, even if, no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless, it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances,

(ii) The cut-off date, to attain the minimum or maximum age, must be specific and determinate on a particular date and it cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date, because it may lead to consequences, anomalies and uncertainties.

(iii) Mere errors of government in fixing of cutoff date, which may be unjust and oppressive are not subject to judicial review, it is only its palpable arbitrary exercise which can be declared void.

(iv) It is the discretion of the rule-making authority or employer, to fix a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post and it cannot be, per se arbitrary, unless the cut-off date, is as wide off the mark, as to make it wholly unreasonable.

(v) A cut-off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision.

As soon as a cut-off date is fixed there will be some persons who fall

on the right side of the cut-off date and some persons fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date and the persons falling on the wrong side cannot challenge the same, unless, it is as capricious or whimsical as to be wholly unreasonable.

(vi) There cannot be any "wholesale relaxation" on the ground that the advertisement is delayed unless, there is an allegation of any mala fides in connection with delay in issuing an advertisement. This wholesale relaxation would make total uncertainty in determining the maximum age of a candidate and it might be unfair for large number of similarly situated candidates who may not apply, thinking that they are age-barred.

(vii) A cut-off date can be provided in terms of the provisions of statute or executive order and if any hardship is caused to some persons or a section of society that may by itself cannot be a ground for holding that the cut-off date so fixed is ultra vires to Article 14 of the constitution.

(viii) The fixing of cut-off dates is within the domain of the executive authority. There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut-off date is fixed. These considerations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. Therefore the court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut-off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary.

8. I have also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court rendered in the case of "Hirandra Kumar" (supra), the relevant paragraphs of which are quoted as under:

23. The legal principles which govern the determination of a cut-off date are well settled. The power to fix a cut-off date or age limit is incidental to the regulatory control which an authority exercises over the selection process. A certain degree of arbitrariness may appear on the face of any cut-off or age limit which is prescribed, since a candidate on the wrong side of the line may stand excluded as a consequence. That, however, is no reason to hold that the cut-off which is prescribed, is arbitrary. In order to declare that a cut-off is arbitrary and ultra vires, it must be of such a nature as to lead to the conclusion that it has been fixed without any rational basis whatsoever or is manifestly unreasonable so as to lead to a conclusion of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

24. Several decisions of this Court have dealt with the issue. In Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan11, a two judge Bench of this Court dealt with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962. Rule 11(1) prescribed that a candidate for direct recruitment should not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for the receipt of applications. Rejecting the contention that the cut- off was arbitrary, this Court held that the fixation of a cut-off prescribing maximum or minimum age requirements for a post is in the discretion of the rule making authority. The Court held thus:

"5. ....In the first place the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is not, per se, arbitrary. Basically, the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post, is in the discretion of the rule-making authority or the employer as the case may be. One must accept that such a cut-off cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision and in such a manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut-off date is fixed there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut-off date and some persons who will fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date. That cannot make the cut-off date, per se, arbitary unless the cut-off date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable."

9. Thus, it is the discretion of the rule-making authority or employer to fix a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age for a post and the said fixing of cut-off date can be interfered with only if the same is palpably an arbitrary exercise of power or appears to be very wide off the reasonable mark. Merely delay in advertising public posts cannot be a ground to give wholesale relaxation to those who come to the court as the same will create an uncertainty and it might be unfair for those who did not fill the form thinking themselves to be overage. Moreover, the fixing of cut-off date cannot be held arbitrary merely on the ground of hardship. Since fixing of cut-off date is within the domain of the executive, the court should not normally interfere with the fixation of the same unless such decision appears to be blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary on the face of it. As soon as a cut-off date is fixed, there will be some aspirants falling on the wrong side of the cut-off date, however, they may not be allowed to challenge the same unless it is capricious or whimsical.

10. In view of the aforesaid legal principles, the issue before this Court is as to whether the fixing of cut-off date for computation of the maximum age limit by the respondent-State is blatantly arbitrary or discriminatory so as to warrant interference of this Court under its writ jurisdiction.

11. It is evident that the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021 has been framed by the orders of the Governor, Jharkhand in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which has subsequently been notified by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand. As per Clause (v) of rule 3, the concerned cadre controlling department is required to calculate the number of vacancies each year on 1 January with respect to the service to be filled in that particular st

year by direct recruitment and to provide requisition for appointment to the Commission after roster clearance through the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa. Further, sub-rule (ii) of rule 4 provides that the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by the Commission shall be known after the year of publication of advertisement of examination under the said Rules. The proviso to rule 4 further speaks that in case, due to

unforeseen reasons the Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination is not held in a particular year, then the Commission will hold the examination for two (or more) years together by clubbing the vacancies.

12. Thus, by reasons of the Rules, 2021, it has been decided that vacancies will be advertised year-wise and if for some unforeseen circumstance the vacancies cannot be advertised in any particular year, then the examination will be held for two or more years together by clubbing the vacancies. It would be evident from the chart provided by the petitioners at paragraph-9 of the writ petition, which has not been controverted by the respondents that the last examination for Combined Civil Services in the State of Jharkhand was held in the year 2016 wherein the cut-off year for upper age limit was fixed as 2010. In the year 2020, the advertisement for Civil Services Competitive Examination-2017, 2018 and 2019 was published, however, the same got cancelled due to Covid-19 pandemic. After coming into force of the Rules, 2021, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand came out with resolution no. 805 dated 05.02.2021, discussing the fact that last vacancy of Combined Civil Services was advertised vide Advertisement No. 23 of 2016 in which the cut-off dates of upper and lower age limit were fixed as 01.08.2010 and 01.08.2016 respectively and thereafter due to certain reason, the vacancies could not be published for more than four years. It was also mentioned inter alia that the vacancies were expected to be published in the month of February 2021 and thus, the cut-off date for computation of upper age limit and lower age limit were fixed as 01.08.2016 and 01.03.2021 respectively. Subsequently, Advertisement No. 01/2021 has been published and in view of the resolution no. 805 dated 05.02.2021, the lower age limit and upper age limit have been fixed as 01.03.2021 and 01.08.2016 respectively.

13. So far the rationality of the fixing of said cut-off date of upper age limit is concerned, it appears that since the examination could not be conducted in the year 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, the vacancies have been clubbed together keeping in view the Rules, 2021 and all those candidates who have become overage during that period have been permitted to appear in the examination by relaxing/fixing the cut-off date of upper age limit as 01.08.2016 and thus no arbitrariness, unreasonableness or irrationality is found in the decision of the respondent-State in fixing the said cut-off date. Since new rule has now been framed making provision for publication of vacancies year-wise with further provision of clubbing the vacancies if the examination is not held in a particular year, the prayer of the petitioners for directing the respondents to follow earlier pattern of fixing the cut-off date cannot be accepted.

14. One of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while giving age relaxation, the respondent-State has though considered those candidates who got overage between 2017 to 2020, it did not consider the adversity of those who were deprived due to non-conducting of examinations between 2011 to 2015 and thus such classification made by the respondent-State is highly discriminatory and unreasonable.

15. The learned Advocate General has countered the said

argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that the persons who were aggrieved with non-holding of examination regularly till 2015, were already given opportunity to appear in the examination conducted in the year 2016 and as such, they cannot claim further relaxation of age in the examination to be conducted in the year 2021.

16. Undoubtedly, the cut-off date is not fixed with mathematical precision and in such manner so as to avoid hardships in all conceivable cases. When a cut-off date is fixed, it might be in favour of some persons and at the same time against others, however, the same by itself may not make it arbitrary unless the date so fixed is grossly unreasonable. Even delay in publishing vacancies does not create right on the candidate who got overage due to such delay to claim relaxation in cut-off date especially when there is no allegation of any malafide in connection with any delay caused in issuing an advertisement.

17. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Krishna Kumar Mishra" (supra) while not entertaining the challenge of the cut-off date, has held as under:

"VII. If these type of petitions are allowed just to accommodate these petitioners, then every now and then similar type of matters will come to the Court, and if we allow a candidate aged about 49 years to prefer an application, then why not to a candidate aged about 50 years. If we allow a candidate aged about 50 years, then why not all the candidates aged about 55 years and so forth, and slowly this cut-off date will allow a candidate to prefer an application for the post in question just before couple of days of the age of his superannuation. This is not permissible in the eye of law. Unless the cutoff date is whimsical, capricious, arbitrary or wide off the mark, as to make it wholly unreasonable, it cannot be altered by the Court. In this eventualities only, the cut-off date can be further scrutinized by this Court."

18. I am of the considered view that interference in fixation of the cut-off date should not be made by the writ court on mere adversity to be faced by a group of aspirants (the petitioners herein) particularly when it appears from the chart provided by the petitioners in the writ petition itself that they have got the opportunity to appear in previous Jharkhand Combined Civil Service Examination held in the year 2016.

19. I have also perused the judgment of "Bhola Nath Rajak" (supra), wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court while answering the question as to whether the writ petitioners were entitled to have the cut-off date as 31.01.2009 for the purpose of calculating the maximum age of 35 years due to non-holding of the examination in terms of the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, relaxed the upper age limit from 31.01.2013 to 31.01.2009 observing that after 2008, the examination could not be conducted for five years. It was held that since there had been no examination for recruitment for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Munsif), the cut-off date for the recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Munsif) of 2013 (Advertisement No. 4/2013) should be 31.1.2009 to render justice to the deprived eligible candidates due to being overage. Accordingly, the cut-off date for fixing maximum age limit of 35 years in the impugned

notification was ordered to be 31.01.2009 instead of 31.01.2013.

20. In the present case also, the respondent-State has followed the same principle by relaxing the upper age limit to the cut-off date as 01.08.2016 since the examination could not be held thereafter.

21. I am also not convinced with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners to contend that the vacancies are of the years prior to 2021 and as such the Rules, 2021 will not be applicable for the same. Since the Rules, 2021 has already been published, the provisions of the same will be applicable to any vacancy published thereafter irrespective of the year of vacancy.

22. The other limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that earlier, combined vacancies for the year 2017, 2018 and 2019 were advertised vide Advertisement No. 01/2020 wherein the cut-off date for upper age limit was fixed as 01.08.2011, however, the same was cancelled due to Covid-19 pandemic and now in the present vacancies, the cut-off date for upper age limit has been fixed as 01.08.2016 which is without any rationale, rhyme and reason. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the Advertisement No. 1/2020 wherein the upper age limit for appearing in combined Civil Service was fixed as 01.08.2011.

23. In the case of "Mohd. Rashid Vs. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat & Ors." reported in (2020) 2 SCC 582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

13. The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment have no right for appointment merely because at one point of time the vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the appellants cannot claim any right of appointment merely for the reason that they responded to an advertisement published on 12-9-2013. Even after completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the merit list do not have any vested right to seek appointment only for the reason that their names appear on the merit list. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800] , a Constitution Bench of this Court held that a candidate seeking appointment to a civil post cannot be regarded to have acquired an indefeasible right to appointment in such post merely because of the appearance of his name in the merit list. This Court held as under: (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 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. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in [State of Haryana v.

SubashChanderMarwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220] ; [NeelimaShangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268] or [Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122] ."

24. Thus, mere fact that at some point of time, any vacancy was advertised, does not by itself gives the aspirant to be appointed on a particular post. Even after completion of the selection process, the candidates coming in the merit list do not have any vested right to seek appointment only for the reason that their names appear in the same. In the present case, since the vacancy advertised in the year 2020 was subsequently cancelled due to the situation beyond control of the authority, the petitioners cannot claim any right by mere publication of the same.

25. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, I do not find any justifiable ground in the writ petition to interfere with the decision with respect to the cut-off date for computation of upper age limit fixed in the Advertisement No. 01/2021.

7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, rules, guidelines and observations, this Court is in full agreement with the view expressed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 864 of 2021 and as such, these writ petitions having no merit and are fit to be dismissed. Resultantly, these writ petitions stand dismissed.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

punit/