JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioners whose names find place in the select-list of the candidates and who expected to be appointed to the posts of Assistant Engineer [Environment] in pursuance to Advertisement No. 1/91, published by the Rajasthan Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short 'the Pollution Board') have approached this Court seeking to set aside the order of the State Government by which the select list has been cancelled. A short question for consideration in this petition is, whether the State Government has acted in an arbitrary manner in cancelling the select list and whether the petitioners can challenge the decision of the State Government ? 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition lie in a narrow compass. Advertisement No. 1/91 was published by the Pollution Board for making recruitment on two posts of Environment Engineer and five posts of Assistant Engineer [Environment]. In the present petition, the controversy relates to five vacancies of Assistant Engineer to be filled in, out of the same, three were in the general category and two in the reserved category. Both the petitioners had applied for the posts of Assistant Engineer in general category. They have brilliant academic career, in as much as, petitioner No. 1 passed his B.E. (Civil) in the year 1985 securing 73% marks and thereafter, he passed M.Tech. in Civil Engineering in 1992 with 71% marks, while petitioner No. 2 passed his B.E. (Civil) Hons. in the year 1986 with 76.9% marks and secured 4th position in merit. Selection of the candidates was to be made on the basis of written test and interview. The written test/examination was conducted by the Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur on 23rd November, 1991. A merit list of successful candidates was prepared by it, out of which 24 meritorious candidates were called for interview on February 17, 1991 before the Selection Board for making selections in general category. No candidate of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for reserved seats was found successful in written test, as such, the interviews were held to fill in the vacancies in general category only. After holding interviews, a selection list of the candidates was prepared and the same was sent to the Pollution Board for making appointments. No candidate of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for reserved seats was found successful in written test, as such, the interviews were held to fill in the vacancies in general category only. After holding interviews, a selection list of the candidates was prepared and the same was sent to the Pollution Board for making appointments. The petitioner's claim that they are in first three candidates of the select list and they had a legitimate expectation to be appointed on the posts of Assistant Engineer [Environment] out of the vacancies in general category. According to them, the decision/action of the State Government in not making appointment is arbitrary, as a result of non-application or absene of proper application of mind. 3. On the other hand, the reply filed by the respondents is quite ambiguous and it does not disclose that there was violation of the procedure to be followed for the process of selection, but the main emphasis is that the select-list was not prepared in a fair and judicious manner. During the course of arguments, the main contention on behalf of the respondents was that the petitioners have no legal right to be appointed on the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Board and that it is outside the purview of judicial scrutiny to go into the reasons for cancelling the select list by the State Government. 4. At the out-set it may be stated that the Pollution Board does not have its own recruitment rules or regulations governing such selection. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, also did not make any submission that there was violation of any procedure to be followed for the process of selection. They also admitted that there was no allegation of malafide against any member of the Selection Board. 5. Before adverting to facual aspect of the case it is necessary to examine the principle issue about the scope of judicial scrutiny in such matters. 6. It is no doubt true that the advertisement of vacancies or the existence of vacancies does not given a legal right to a candidate to get appointment. Similarly, the mere fact that his name appears in the select list will not entitle him to a mandamus to be appointed. 6. It is no doubt true that the advertisement of vacancies or the existence of vacancies does not given a legal right to a candidate to get appointment. Similarly, the mere fact that his name appears in the select list will not entitle him to a mandamus to be appointed. It is now well settled by a catena of judgments of the Apex Court of the country that a person selected for direct recruitment through the selection process, does not have an unfettered or vested right to be appointed on the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Board. Neverthless, the merit list of selection is of great importance. It is a public document and every candidate has a right to know having regard to the vacancies, whether he is likely to be appointed, if not, the reasons of the same. In order to keep purity in recruitment in public services, it is necessary that the process should be allowed to reach the stage of finality. There must be a conscious application of mind of the Government who is the appointing authority in the present case, while deciding to cancel the select list and the decision complained of must be demonstrated to be one that it is not vitiated by arbitrari ness. The process of selection by a selecting committee, consisting of independent persons, is to ensure selection of best available persons for appointment in a post to avoid arbitrainess and nepoism in the matter of appointment. The selection of candidates by the selection committee, however, is only a recommendation and the final authority for appointment is the State Government. The Government may accept recommendation or decline to accept the same, but if it chooses not to accept the recommendation, the reasons must be disclosed and its action should not be arbitrary or mala fide. 7. The matter was examined by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court as to whether a candidate, whose name appears in the select list, on the basis of competitve examination, acquires indefeasible right of appointment if a vacancy exists. The Constitution Bench in Shankarsandash Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 , after considering various decisions delivered in the past, laid down as under: "7. The Constitution Bench in Shankarsandash Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 , after considering various decisions delivered in the past, laid down as under: "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vancancies 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 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. Subhash Chandra Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220 ; Neelima Shangla V. State of Haryana (1986) 4 SCC 228; or Jatendra Kumar V. State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 122 ." 8. In Union Territory of Chandigarh V. Dilbagh Singh and others (1993) 1 SCC 154 , the view taken in Shankarsandash's case was reiterated. 9. In Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and another V. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others; (1993) 2 SCC 573 , the Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down by Constitu- tion Bench of the Supreme Court in Shankarsandash's (supra) case and it was observed as under: ''. 8. It is true that mere inclusion in the select list does not confer upon the candidates included therein an indefeasible right to appointment ( State of Haryana V. Subhash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220 ; Mani Subrat Jain V. State of Haryana (1977) SCC 486; State of Kerala V. A. Lakshmikutty (1986) 4 SCC 632 ; but that is only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is the obligation of the Government to act fairly. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce. The other aspect is the obligation of the Government to act fairly. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce. Having sent a requistion/request to the Commission to select a particular number of candidates for a particular category,-in pursuance of which the Commission issues a notification, hold a written test conducts interviews, prepares a selecte list and then communicates to the Government. The Government cannot quietly and without good and valid reasons nullify the whole exercise and tell the candidates, when they complain that they have no legal right to appointment. We do not think that any Government can adopt such a stand with any justification today. This aspect has been dealt with by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsandash V. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 ; where the earlier decisions of this Court are also noted." 10. In Dr. H. Mukharjee V. Union of India (1994) Supp. (1) SCC 250 , it was again observed that the selection made by Public Service Commission was only recommendatory in nature and it was open to the Government to either accept the recommendation or to depart therefrom. It was held: "It seems well settled, the functions of the Public Service Commission being advisory, the Government may for valid reasons to be recorded on the file disapprove of the advice or recommendations tendered by the Commission, which decision can, if at all, be tested on the limited ground of it being thoroughly arbitrary, mala fide or capricious." 11. The petitioners, whose names find place in the select list, have a legitimate expectation to get appointment in civil post advertised by a Public body. The Supreme Court by a detailed judgment, in Union of India and others V. Hindusthan Development Corporation and others, (1993) 3 SCC 499, has considered the doctrine of legitimate expectation as the basis of foundation or right and obligations vis-a-vis administrative authorities arising therefrom and held that it operates in the public field and provides a locusstandi for judicial review. The Supreme Court by a detailed judgment, in Union of India and others V. Hindusthan Development Corporation and others, (1993) 3 SCC 499, has considered the doctrine of legitimate expectation as the basis of foundation or right and obligations vis-a-vis administrative authorities arising therefrom and held that it operates in the public field and provides a locusstandi for judicial review. After considering the entire case law, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was explained as under: "On examination of some of these important decisions it is generally agreed that legitimate expectation gives the applicant sufficient locusstandi for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is to be confined mostly to right of a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightway from the administrative authorities as no crystallised right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then decision- maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. Therefore, even if substantive protection of such expectation is contemplated that does not grant an absolute right to a particular person. It simply ensures the circumstances in which that expectation may be denied or restricted. A case of legitimate expectation would arise when a body by representation or by past practice aroused expectation which it would be within its powers to fulfil. The protection is limited to that extent and a judicial review can be within those limits. But as discussed above, a person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, must satisfy that there is a foundation and thus has locus standi to make such a claim. In considering the same serveral factors which give rise to such legitimate expectation must be present. The decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest. If it is a question of policy, even by way of change of old policy, the courts cannot interfere with a decision. In considering the same serveral factors which give rise to such legitimate expectation must be present. The decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest. If it is a question of policy, even by way of change of old policy, the courts cannot interfere with a decision. In a given case whether there are such facts and circumstances giving rise to a legitimate expectation, it would primarily be a question of fact. If these tests are satisfied and if the court is satisfied that a case of legitimate expectation is made out then the next question would be whether failure to give an opportunity of hearing before the decision affecting such legitimate expectation is taken, has resulted in failure of justice and whether on that ground the decision should be quashed. If that be so then what should be the relief is again a matter which depends on serveral factors." Then it was further observed in para 35 of the judgment as under:- "If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power of violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14 but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without any- thing more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles. It can be one of the ground to consider but the court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative of these principles warranting interference. It depends very much on the facts and the recognised general principles of administrative law applicable to such facts and the concept of legitimate expectation which is the latest recruit to a long list of concepts fashioned by the courts for the review of administrative action, must be restricted to the general legal limitations applicable and binding the manner of the future exercise of administrative power in a particular case." 12. In the background of law enunciated by the Apex Court of the country, defence argument cannot be accepted that the petitioners have no locusstandi for judicial review. In the background of law enunciated by the Apex Court of the country, defence argument cannot be accepted that the petitioners have no locusstandi for judicial review. The action of the State Governement, in can- celling the select list can be questioned if the decision is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or in violation of principle of natural justice, though the petitioners may not claim a right of mandamus to be appointed in the post. 13. In order to examine as to whether the decision of the State Government in cancelling the select list stands vitiated on the ground of arbitrariness or mala fide, the stand taken by the respondents in their reply appears to be quite ambiguous. The relevant portion of the reply of the State Government in this connection is as under : "It is not admited that only due to non-selection of S.C./S.T. candidates result could not be declared. Due to some irregularities and mistakes the State had taken a decision in the interest of public at large vide its order dated 15.1.93, cancelled all the selections and directed to make the fresh selections as per rules." The State Government has not given the particulars of the irregularities or discrepancies on account of which the select list was cancelled. However, from the reply of the State Government, it transpires that selections were not cancelled for non-selection of S.C./S.T. candidates in written test for the reserved posts. The reply of the Pollution Board is more or less in the same terms. The relevant portion of the reply contained in para 2 is reproduced as under: ".It is also to submit that certain mistakes underwent during the preparation of merit list. In the list sent by M.R.E.C., out of mistake showed the candidate at Roll No. 139 as the candidate who passed the examination whereas he was absent in the examination. When the mistake came to the notice of the Board, it contacted the concerned Officers of M.R.E.C. who later on admitted the mistake in preparation of result. The candidate who could not have been invited for interview were also called for interview on 27.2.92. Similarly another candidate, who applied for the post of Jr. Engineer was called for interview for the post of Assistant Engineer by mistake. The candidate who could not have been invited for interview were also called for interview on 27.2.92. Similarly another candidate, who applied for the post of Jr. Engineer was called for interview for the post of Assistant Engineer by mistake. Besides above, one post each from S.C. and S.T. was reserved for appointment, but in fact no such candidate qualified in the written examination and as such no candidate was called for interview from S.C. and S.T. in view of the irregularities and mistakes, the process of selection of candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer was cancelled by the State Government vide its order dated 15.1.93 and directed for fresh recruitment of the candidates as per rules." Since the matter did not appear to be free from ambiguity on the basis of the affidavits and reply filed by the respondents, relevant file was called by me and the same was made available by Shri Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel for the State Government. 14. After examining the entire material produced before me and the respective submission made by learned counsel for the parties, I find that the State Government has acted arbitrarily and without proper application of mind in cancelling the select list. 15. As stated earlier, the State Government, in its reply has not detailed out the irregularities or discrepancies for which the select list was cancelled, though the Pollution Board has referred to two irregularities or mistakes in its reply. From the relevant file, it transpires that 6 posts of Assistant Engineers were to be filled in, out of same two posts were reserved for S.C./S.T. candidates. For the reserved posts, no candidate of S.C./S.T. was successful in the written test/examination as such interviews were held for four posts in general category only. It is also revealed that one Mr. Praveen Kumar Marken had not appeared in written test/examination but he was called for interview due to clerical mistake in place of Shri Arvind Vijay, but the mistake was realised at the initial stage and the same was rectified. The genuine candidate Shri Arvind Vijay was called for interview and, in fact, he was interviewed on 27.2.1992. Admittedly, the above irregularity could hardly vitiate the process of selection as the mistake of the initial stage has no bearing on the select-list prepared by the Selection Board. The genuine candidate Shri Arvind Vijay was called for interview and, in fact, he was interviewed on 27.2.1992. Admittedly, the above irregularity could hardly vitiate the process of selection as the mistake of the initial stage has no bearing on the select-list prepared by the Selection Board. This position could not be disputed even by the learned counsel appearing for respondents when they were confronted with the entire material and the fact that the mistake was rectified at the initial stage before preparation of the select-list. 16. The second mistake pointed out is that one Mahendra Kumar Kaushik had applied for the post of Jr. Engineer but he was wrongly called for written test/examination and interview for the post of Assistant Engineer. This discrepancy has also no bearing on the selection list, as Mahendra Kumar Kaushik is not included in the select-list. As per reply of the State Government, for the above two mistakes the select list was cancelled, but I am of the confirmed view that they had no bearing on the result to vitiate entire process of selection. The State Government, has, thus, cancelled the select list without proper application of mind in an arbitrary manner. From the relevant file it is also revealed that selection list has not been cancelled for the above irregularities or mistakes, but still the State Government in its reply before this court has made them as the basis for cancelling the select list. 17. Non-selection of S.C./S.T. candidate in the written test for the reserved posts could not be a ground for cancelling select list for making appointment in the posts of general category. The State Government has not stressed this fact in its reply for cancelling the select list. The recomendations of the Selection Committee for making appointment on the vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Environment) in general category, therefore, hold good and action of the State Government in cancelling select list is arbitrary, liable to be set aside on a judicial review. 18. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The State Government is directed to proceed further with the the process of selection for the vacancies of Assistant Enginers (Environment) in general category as per select list. The petitioners shall be entitled to get cost of this litigation which is quantified as Rs. 2000/-.Petition allowed with costs. *******