1. An Employer's Decision on Eligibility: A court is not sitting in appeal over the recruitment process. Where the terms of the advertisement are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over them or substitute its own assessment for that of the employer. In the absence of ambiguity or illegality in the prescription itself, it is not open to the Court, in the exercise of judicial review, to assume the role of the appointing authority and decide what should be treated as sufficient experience. (Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade). 2. Assessment of Experience: The evaluation of whether the nature of a candidate's experience meets recruitment criteria lies primarily with the employer. Interference is not warranted unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary or without basis. A reference to risk analysis in a certificate issued by a placement agency does not compel the Bank to treat such engagement as equivalent to the prescribed experience for a Manager (Risk) post in a bank. 3. Legitimate Expectation and Provisional Offers: The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot operate contrary to the express terms governing the appointment. Where an offer of appointment is expressly provisional and subject to fulfilment of eligibility criteria and submission of documents, no enforceable right arises merely because the candidate was permitted to participate in the selection process. Inclusion in a select list, or even selection, does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment. 4. Sufficient Grounds for Cancellation: The plea that the impugned communication is non-speaking does not merit acceptance. While the order is brief, it clearly records the basis of cancellation, namely that the post-qualification work experience does not meet the prescribed criteria. Such articulation cannot be said to be so deficient as to warrant interference in a recruitment decision. 5. Procedural Fairness Disclaimer: The order clarifies that while the Court finds no ground to interfere, it does not preclude the Petitioner from pursuing remedies for any alleged loss or damage arising from the event, if so advised. The writ petition is dismissed.
