Kumudini Bagarty Vs Collector,-C-Chairm

in respect of Bramhani UPS, Saintala, one post of Warden, one Accountant, three Part Time Teachers, one Lady Peon-cumAttendant, one Watchman-cum-Sweeper, one Cook and two Additional Cooks were advertised. As per the Selection Committee proceeding all other posts in respect of Bramhani UPS were filled up except the post for Cook and Additional Cook. The Selection Committee decided to go for fresh advertisement without filling up the posts of Cook and Additional Cook.

¶24

3. According to the Petitioner she had applied for the post of Cook and she was selected in due process of selection. Her name was placed in the merit list. But she was not offered with appointment order though the persons selected for other posts were given appointment.

¶25

4. Finding her name in the merit list, she had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.10535 of 2013 and this Court vide order dated 18^th June 2013 directed the Collector, Balangir to take a final decision on the grievance of the Petitioner. Pursuant to said order dated 18^th June 2013 of this Court, the Collector in his order dated 31^st December 2013 (Annexure-2) while admitting the selection of the Petitioner and publishing her name in the merit list,

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 7699 of 2014 Page 2 of 12

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:48:15

¶29

directed the District Gender Coordination Committee (the Selection Committee) to reconsider the grievance of the Petitioner relating to the post of Cook in K.G.B.V. Hostel, Bramhani under Saintala block. Pursuant to said direction of the Collector under Annexure-2, the committee convened the meeting on 24^th February 2014 and the DEOcum-DPC of S.S.A., Balangir in his order dated 28^th February 2014 (Annexure-3) communicated the Petitioner that the committee has unanimously decided to go for a fresh advertisement for the post of Cook and Additional Cook of K.G.B.V. Hostel, Bramhani.

¶30

5. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the fact of selection of the Petitioner for the post of Cook and publishing her name in the merit list is never disputed, rather admitted by the Collector in the impugned order under Annexure-2, the committee has taken decision to go for fresh advertisement only for the posts of Cook and Additional Cook because some villagers could not apply for the same. According to Mr. Das such approach of the authority is in gross violation of the settled law and illegality committed on the part of the authority to deprive the Petitioner from getting the appointment.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 7699 of 2014 Page 3 of 12

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:48:15

¶34

6. The State has filed its counter affidavit without disputing

¶35

the fact of selection of the Petitioner for the post of Cook in terms of the advertisement under Annexure-1. But it is stated that since some other villagers could not apply or unable to apply for the post of Cook and Additional Cook due to lack of information, the Selection Committee in its meeting dated 19^th December 2012 have decided to go for a fresh advertisement. It is important to reproduce Para-5 of the counter affidavit filed by the State which reads as under:-

¶36

That it is respectfully submitted that after publication of draft provisional list for engagement in different vacancies in KGBV Hostels, some villagers of Brahmani complaint before the Collector, Balangir that two lady of the village Brahmani namely Smt. Phala Chandan & Ku. Sabitri Naik have been engaged by the SMC of Brahmani as Cook for smooth management of KGBV Hostel. But, they are unable to apply for the post of Cook & Addl. Cook due to lack of information. Under above circumstances, the District Gender Coordination Committee meeting held on 19.12.2012 unanimously decided that fresh advertisement shall be issued to give them a chance to apply for the said post. Thus engagement of Cook & Addl. Cook in K.G.B.V. Hostel, Brahmani was cancelled and rest vacancies were filled up.

¶37

7. Annexure-C/2, which is the proceeding dated 19^th

¶38

December 2012 of the committee reveals that due to inability of two particular persons to apply for the post, the committee decided for going for fresh advertisement. The relevant portion of Annexure-C/2 is reproduced below:-

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 7699 of 2014 Page 4 of 12

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:48:15

¶42

“ K.G.B.V. Hostel, Brahmani, Block Saintala:- The post wise

¶43

discussion was made as detailed below:-

¶44

COOK & ADDITIONAL COOK:- In view of the representation from the part time cook engaged by the SMC, Brahmani KGBV regarding their inability to apply for this post, the Committee unanimously decided that fresh advertisement shall be issued to give them a chance to apply for the said post.”

¶45

8. Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA submits that since the

¶46

advertisement could not be brought with the notice of local public at large, the committee decided to go for fresh advertisement in order to fill the posts of Cook and Additional Cook. Therefore, nothing mala fide would be attributed on the part of the Selection Committee to not extend the order of appointment in favour of the Petitioner.

¶47

9. As seen from the narration of facts, it is found that the selection of the Petitioner to the post of the Cook pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1 is admitted to the extent that she was

¶48

selected and her name was placed in the merit list. But despite her name was placed in the merit list she was not extended with appointment for the reason that some of the villagers could not apply for such posts due to lack of information. It is true that mere selection of a candidate and placing her name in the selection list would not

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 7699 of 2014 Page 5 of 12

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:48:15

¶52

confer any right upon her to be appointed to the post. The cancellation of selection list is within the discretion of the authority and in this regard the law is no more res integra . In Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors.

¶53

vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have observed as follows:-

¶54

24. The principle of fairness in action requires that public authorities be held accountable for their representations. Good administration requires public authorities to act in a predictable manner and honour the promises made or practices established unless there is good reason not to do so.

¶55

25. Candidates participating in a recruitment process have legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non-arbitrary. The basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in government dealings with individuals. It recognises that a public authority's promise or past conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. This doctrine is premised on the notion that public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure.

¶56

26. However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not impede or hinder the power of the public authorities to lay down a policy or withdraw it. The public authority

¶57

W.P.(C) No. 7699 of 2014 Page 6 of 12

¶58

Signature Not Verified

¶59

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:48:15

¶60

has the discretion to exercise the full range of choices available within its executive power. The public authority often has to take into consideration diverse factors, concerns, and interests before arriving at a particular policy decision. The courts are generally cautious in interfering with a bona fide decision of public authorities which denies legitimate expectation provided such a decision is taken in the larger public interest. Thus, public interest serves as a limitation on the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

¶61

27. Courts have to determine whether the public interest is compelling and sufficient to outweigh the legitimate expectation of the claimant. While performing a balancing exercise, courts have to often grapple with the issues of burden and standard of proof required to dislodge the claim of legitimate expectation.

¶62

28. In Sivanandan C.T.²³ , the Constitution Bench, speaking through one of us (Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.), held that for a public authority to frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation, it must objectively demonstrate by placing relevant material before the court that its decision was in the public interest. This standard is consistent with the principles of good administration which require that State actions must be held to scrupulous standards to prevent misuse of public power and ensure fairness to citizens. It was also highlighted that the doctrine of legitimate expectation lays emphasis on predictability and consistency in decision-making which is a facet of non-arbitrariness. In addition, the Court observed : (SCC p. 822, para 45)

¶63

W.P.(C) No. 7699 of 2014 Page 7 of 12

¶64

Signature Not Verified

¶65

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:48:15

¶66

“ 45 . The underlying basis for the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation has expanded and evolved to include the principles of good administration. … The principles of good administration require that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency, and predictability to avoid being regarded as arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.”

¶67

64. Thus, in light of the decision in Shankarsan Dash⁴⁵ , 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 Marwaha³ 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.

¶68

65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.

¶69

10. Further in East Coast Railway & Anr. vs. Mahadev Appa

¶70

Rao & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 678 it is stated as follows:-

¶71

W.P.(C) No. 7699 of 2014 Page 8 of 12

¶72

Signature Not Verified

¶73

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:48:15

¶74

14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State's decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ court. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter.

¶75

15. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in UT of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh¹⁰ where again this Court reiterated that while a candidate who finds a place in the select list may have no vested right to be appointed to any post, in the absence of any specific rules entitling him to the same, he may still be aggrieved of his non-appointment if the authority concerned acts arbitrarily or in a mala fide manner….xx xx xx

¶76

16. Applying these principles to the case at hand there is no gainsaying that while the candidates who appeared in the typewriting test had no indefeasible or absolute right to seek an appointment, yet the same did not give a licence to the competent authority to cancel the examination and the result thereof in an arbitrary manner. The least which the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment and who had appeared in the examination that constituted a step-inaid of a possible appointment in their favour, were

¶77

W.P.(C) No. 7699 of 2014 Page 9 of 12

¶78

Signature Not Verified

¶79

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:48:15

¶80

entitled to is to ensure that the selection process was not allowed to be scuttled for mala fide reasons or in an arbitrary manner.

¶81

11. The concept of arbitrariness has been explained in Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. vs. State of U.P & Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 212, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained as follows:-

¶82

36. The meaning and true import of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely stated or defined. The question, whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to be answered on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case. An obvious test to apply is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonableness. Where a mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in following that procedure, performance of the act otherwise and in a manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable, may itself attract the vice of arbitrariness. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. Rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is trite that ‘be you ever so high, the laws are above you’. This is what men in power must remember, always.

¶83

12. In the given facts of the instant case, it is not that the entire

¶84

advertisement for all such posts have been cancelled due to some

¶85

W.P.(C) No. 7699 of 2014 Page 10 of 12

¶86

Signature Not Verified

¶87

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:48:15

¶88

corruption or irregularities noticed by the authorities. While the selection to other posts like Warden, Assistant Teacher, Lady Attendant etc., were given effect to by offering Appointment to the respective selected candidates, but for the post of Cook the selection was only cancelled. The cancellation of selection of the Petitioner for the post of Cook is not for the reason that any irregularity or illegality was committed in the process of selection. But it, as stated in the decision of the committee under Annexure-C/2, is to the effect that two persons who were earlier engaged as part time cook in the same institution made their representation stating their inability to apply for the post. This is the sole reason for not effecting the selection list for appointment to the post of Cook. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid reason as stated by the authorities under Annexure-C/2 and reiterated in the counter affidavit as well as in the impugned orders cannot be held legal and valid at any stage. As stated above, since the authorities have failed to justify their action for cancellation of the selection list in respect of the Petitioner to the post of Cook with any illegality either on the part of the Petitioner or otherwise, such action for cancellation of the selection list is liable to be declared as illegal, arbitrary and invalid.

¶89

W.P.(C) No. 7699 of 2014 Page 11 of 12

¶90

Signature Not Verified

¶91

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:48:15

¶92

13. As per the admission of the Opposite Parties the selection

¶93

of the Petitioner to the post of Cook is without violation of any procedural flaw or illegality. Since the Petitioner was selected in a due process of selection for the post her right to be appointment cannot be curtailed on unsustainable grounds, where the committee has bent upon in favour of two persons to give them appointment. Accordingly, the impugned orders under Annexure-2 & 3 are quashed. The Opposite Parties are directed to give appointment to the Petitioner as Cook of K.G.B.V. Hostel, Bramhani, Saintala block, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶94

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as allowed.

¶95

(B.P. Routray) Judge

¶96

S.Das,Sr.Steno

¶97

W.P.(C) No. 7699 of 2014 Page 12 of 12

Kumudini Bagarty v. Collector,-C-Chairm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumudini Bagarty v. Collector,-C-Chairm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brahmananda Mohapatra Vs Bhagaban Mohapatra

Umakanta Acharya Vs Nibedita Bose

Sakuntala Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Ritanjali Giri@Paul Vs State of Odisha

Manoranjan Bhuyan Vs Kalpana Bewa @ Bhuyan

Sahil Dhir Vs Sanjay Kumar Dhir