M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition raises an issue of significance pertaining to the purity of procedure that is incumbent in the conduct of public authorities in matters pertaining to recruitment. The moot point that has been vehemently debated centres around the question as to whether a public authority is justified in aborting the recruitment sequence prior to its reaching a stage of finality. while it is conceded that the power to suspend or modify the process is inherent, the further subsidiary question that has been posed is as to whether the manner in which that power is exercised can be questioned. As a corrollary, the incidental aspect of the matter that falls for determination is as to whether in cases where that power is improperly exercised, a court would be justified in directing the derailed process to be restored to its original point and to be continued in the same manner as though it would have proceeded but for the interruption or variation. A few of the relevant facts that have given rise to this dispute are set out below; ( 2 ) THE petitioner has passed his master's degree in arts with sanskrit and is a first rank holder in that subject from the bangalore university. He had been awarded four gold medals for his outstanding performance and the records show that he has been a meritorious student all through. The bangalore university published a notification dated 12-10-1993 inviting applications for several courses, one of which was to the post of lecturer in sanskrit. This post was classified and advertised as a general merit post. The petitioner filled in the prescribed form along with the application fees and submitted these before the last date i. e. , 13-12-1993. Having regard to the petitioner's merit and the fact that he was head and shoulders above most of the other applicants, he had expected to receive a call letter for interview and an appointment later thereafter, but nothing happened. On making enquiries, he was informed that the university had set up a sub-committee to look into the question of regularisation of several other persons in whose cases certain impediments existed but where the authorities had decided to regularise the appointments, and that this sub-committee had submitted certain recommendations. On making enquiries, he was informed that the university had set up a sub-committee to look into the question of regularisation of several other persons in whose cases certain impediments existed but where the authorities had decided to regularise the appointments, and that this sub-committee had submitted certain recommendations. On the basis of these recommendations, the university is alleged to have altered the position and reserved the post of lecturer in sanskrit for a scheduled caste student. Pursuant to this, the heads of the departments had been asked to notify certain vacancies on the notice board vide notification dated 17-1-1994 and to forward the applications from eligible candidates on or before 31-3-1994. On this basis, it is contended that the respondents subsequently appointed respondent 4 to the post of lecturer in sanskrit. It is alleged by the petitioner that unlike the earlier advertisements, that on this occasion the entire process was done very quietly and behind his back and in Order to favour the 4th respondent. he also points out that out of the 6 posts in the department of sanskrit, there is already a candidate belonging to the scheduled caste and that therefore, there is adequate representation to the reserved category candidates even if it is the contention of the university that this ratio is required to be borne in mind. ( 3 ) THE defence of the university is that in the first instance, the petitioner is only an applicant for an advertised post and that consequently, he is only entitled to be considered. He has no right and in any event, no enforceable right in respect of that post on the basis of which he can insist on a writ of mandamus being issued to the authorities to appoint him. Furthermore, it is contended that the university has the absolute right to suspend or revoke the invitation for applications and that none of the candidates who have applied, can question the power of the university in this regard. On facts, the university justifies its action by pointing out that the sub-committee for regularisation of the appointments of several other persons had put forward a recommendation that the existing vacancies should be utilised in a particular manner and that it was pursuant to this recommendating that the post of lecturer in sanskrit was shifted over to a scheduled caste candidate. They contended that for purposes of accommodating those persons it was decided to make certain modifications in the posts that had been advertised and that this was perfectly permissible. Respondent the selected candidate, has contended that his appointment is perfectly within the frame work of law, that the vacancy was for a schedule caste candidate and that the petitioner could not be considered for the post as he belongs to the general category. respondent 4 has submitted that insofar as his appointment does not suffer from any infirmity, that no relief should be granted to the petitioner and in any event, not at the expense of dislodging him. ( 4 ) MR. Subba rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the action of the university is vitiated by mala fides. He has contended that in law, the position that emerges is that the university was bound to ACT in consonance with the advertisement, that they could not have clandestinely altered behind the back of the petitioner and that on merits, the petitioner would have walked into the post and therefore, that the court must direct the university to consider his application and appoint him as he is the most meritorious candidate. Mr. Rao has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Hindustan development Corporation and others, wherein, the supreme court in a detailed judgment had considered the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the basis or foundation of rights and obligations vis-a-vis administrative authorities arising therefrom and held that it operates in the public field and provides a locus standi for judicial review. In particular, he relies on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that the defence can only justify its action by showing overriding public interest and the lack of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. He has also placed strong reliance on a decision of the court of appeal reported in R. v. Secretary of State for Social Services Ex Parte Welcome Foundation Ltd. wherein the court while considering the scope of judicial review in cases of the present type has clearly laid down that even while exercising discretion, all relevant factors must be considered and that the party must direct himself properly in law. Mr. Mr. Rao submits that the action of the university is vitiated by mala fides that it is unjust and that it is liable to be struck down. ( 5 ) MR. H. k vasudeva reddy, who appears on behalf of the main contesting respondents namely the university has argued firstly that the university was required to vary the earlier advertisement because of the recommendations of the sub-committee pursuant to which, it was necessary to utilise the existing vacancies rather than creating a crisis of recruiting outsiders and then finding that there were insufficient posts for those who have to be regularised. To my mind, this defence is hopelessly untenable. We are concerned with only one post in the present instance and admittedly there was adequate representation for a scheduled caste candidate already. It is nobody's case that the notification prescribing the vacancy as one for the general merit category as originally incorporated was erroneous. To my mind, therefore, there was no justifiable ground for altering this particular post and more so, if the reason given was that it was done in Order to accommodate the people whose appointments themselves were not regular. In this regard, Mr. Rao on behalf of the petitioner has seriously attacked the university because he points out that in actual fact unqualified persons are quietly appointed on a temporary or ad hoc basis, their tenure renewed several times and finally, after sufficient years have elapsed, the appointment is quietly regularised thereby giving a complete go-by to the basic requirements of advertising, scrutinising the qualifications and appointing the best candidates. It is impossible on these facts for me to hold that the decision was either fair or that it was in the public interest or that it was bona fide. ( 6 ) MR. Reddy has argued at great length and has sought to justify the action through a reference to several judicial decisions. He draws attention to jai singh dalai and others v state of haryana and another , wherein the Supreme Court while considering a case under service law upheld a decision of the punjab government whereby the special recruitment process was stopped because the criteria was required to be revised. The court observed that at the most, the government may be required to justify its decision as being not arbitrary. The court observed that at the most, the government may be required to justify its decision as being not arbitrary. The facts of that case were different to the present one and to my mind, since the respondents have not been successful in justifying their decision, they cannot rely on the principle enunciated in that case. Nextly, Mr. Reddy has relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Delhi Auto and General Finance Pvt. Ltd. And others. While considering the doctrine of reasonable expectation, the court held that the aggrieved party does not have a basis or an enforceable right to provide a foundation for challenge of a decision on this ground alone. Mr. Reddy therefore submitted that even if the petitioner contends that on merits he should have been appointed to the post, that the right is still not enforceable. To my mind, this is a misreading of the judgment which proceeds to hold that the decision complained of must be demonstrated to be one that is not vitiated by arbitrariness. In the present case, the fact that the categorisation of the post was changed without any justification and on a ground that has not passed scrutiny is sufficient to render it as unfair and arbitrary. ( 7 ) MR. Reddy also relied on another decision of the supreme court in N. T. Bevin Katti, etc. V. Karnataka public service commission and others, wherein the Karnataka public service commission was seeking certain changes made by the government in relation to a notification issued specifying reservations and mode of selection under existing orders. Mr. reddy submitted that the law does contemplate a modification in the course of the recruitment procedure and that what his client did was perfectly permissible. A careful reading of the judgment will indicate that such a rectification is undoubtedly permissible provided it can be justified. That is not the case here. Mr. Reddy also relied for this purpose on another decision of the supreme court in P. Mahendran and others v. State of Karnataka and others, wherein, while appointing motor vehicles inspectors, the rajasthan government carried out certain changes in keeping with the rules that had come to be amended. Mr. Reddy submitted that the court had accepted the validity of such a procedure. Mr. Reddy submitted that the court had accepted the validity of such a procedure. An analysis of the judgment however indicates, that while there is no quarrel about the proposition that in a given case changes may be permissible, that the court had very clearly held that such changes can have only prospective application. applying that principle to the present case, it will have to be held that the subsequent recommendations of the selection committee cannot justify the university giving retrospective application to these recommendations and that too in the circumstances in which the same was done. ( 8 ) MR. Reddy also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakask Chandra Misra and others, wherein the government of Orissa had occasion to alter the ratio of posts reserved for promotees and the court upheld the government's power to do so even during the course of the recruitment process. It is not the power of the government that is in dispute but the circumstances in which that power is exercised and the grounds put forward in justification thereof in that matter. In a given case, a modification, rectification or correction may be perfectly legitimate whereas in another instance, it could be struck down. ( 9 ) IN sum and substance, learned counsel had vehemently submitted that no interference is called for from this court insofar as the action in question constitutes a bona fide exercise of power. Basically, Mr. Reddy contends that in Order to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court, the petitioner must demonstrate an enforceable right which cannot and does not accrue to him at a point of time when he is a mere applicant pursuant to the issue of an advertisement for a particular post. he submits that even if the petitioner legitimately expected to be appointed to the post, his failure to secure that appointment is not something that would entitle him to a direction from this court particularly when it is demonstrated that the respondents were acting within their legal rights. he submits that even if the petitioner legitimately expected to be appointed to the post, his failure to secure that appointment is not something that would entitle him to a direction from this court particularly when it is demonstrated that the respondents were acting within their legal rights. ( 10 ) ON a consideration of the material before me, the position in law and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties, what emerges is that as on the last date when the petitioner submitted his application, he was justified in his expectation that being the most meritorious candidate, he would have been appointed to the post. The respondent university unjustifiably and clandestinely varied the categorisation of the post and to my mind, this could not have been done because among other things as far as the department of sanskrit was concerned, it would constitute a hundred per cent reservation. It is also not very clear as to whether the respondent 4 was one of the persons among those whose appointments had to be regularised. On the contrary, the record seems to indicate that he was a fresh appointee. This only worsens the position for the respondent university. The basic principle that requires to be laid down is that an authority does have the power to suspend or revoke the recruitment process provided there is full and valid justification for doing this and further more, that an authority does have the power to vary or correct the method of recruitment provided that can be again justified conversely in the absence of such a situation, the suspension, modification or revocation of the recruitment process is certainly questionable. One needs to take special note of the unemployment situation and even greater cognizance of the dishonest and underhand practices, favouritism and manipulation that is rampant in the recruitment process and from this angle, particularly where institutions such as universities are concerned, a court will have to be doubly strict while scrutinising a case where unfairness and arbitrariness are alleged. The crystallised position in law is that even though the power exists, if the manner in which that power is exercised is questionable, then a writ court can interfere for purposes of doing complete justice. The crystallised position in law is that even though the power exists, if the manner in which that power is exercised is questionable, then a writ court can interfere for purposes of doing complete justice. ( 11 ) IN application of this principle, it will have to be held that the petitioner is entitled to a direction from this court striking down the action of the university in converting the post from a open merit one to a reserved category one. As far as appointment of the respondent 4 is concerned, it is left open to the authorities if they so desire, if respondent 4 is qualified and if he can still be accommodated to retain his services. This presupposes the fact that this can only be done provided it does not jeopardise the appointment of the petitioner as lecturer in sanskrit. ( 12 ) THE purity of public administration will require that the status quo ante be restored. The university shall therefore proceed to consider the application of the petitioner for the open merit post of lecturer in sanskrit in relation to the other applicants if any for that post as on the last date for submission of those applications. This process shall be completed within a period of thirty days from today. If the petitioner is the most suitable and eligible candidate it only follows that the post shall be offered to him but having regard to the fact that the respondent university was responsible for denying him the appointment in the year 1993. The appointment Order shall take effect from 1-1-1994. ( 13 ) THE petitioner accordingly succeeds. Rule is made absolute to this extent. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs. It is clarified, that the observations made in relation to respondent 4 are only to the limited extent that he should not be made to automatically suffer for the fault of the university authorities and therefore de hors the claim of the present petitioner, if the university authorities desire to retain him in service, that they shall not be precluded from doing so. --- *** --- .