JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. The judgment dated 24.6.2005 passed by a Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 467 of 2002 stands impugned in this writ appeal. By the said judgment, the order dated 18.9.02 of the Superintendent of Police, North Tripura, Kailashahar, the fourth Respondent herein, cancelling the offer of appointment of the Appellant herein to the post of Constable (female) has been quashed. 2. The material fact in short giving rise to the present proceeding originated from an advertisement dated 20.9.2001 published in a local daily inviting applications for recruitment of 27 posts of Constable (female) from serving Homeguard, Civil Defence workers and Ex-servicemen through test/interview. In the same advertisement, it was also notified that 518 posts of Constables (male) would also be filled up. Clear indications therein were that 35% of the vacant posts would be reserved for Homeguards, 5% for Civil Defence workers and 2% for Ex-servicemen while remaining vacancies would be filled up by eligible candidates from open market. The Respondent herein is a serving Homeguard (female) of the Police department. Pursuant to the said advertisement, she applied for one of the posts and went through the recruitment process for test, written examination and interview. She was found suitable and her name was included in the select list for appointment against one of the 27 vacancies of Constables (female). The State Respondents appointed a Board which conducted test, written examination and interview. In the merit list for female candidates, Petitioner's position stood at SI. No. 3. When the merit list of 848 candidates (male) and 47 candidates (female) was sent to the State Government in the Home Department, a direction was received that the said merit list should be rearranged Sub-division wise in order to ensure Sub-divisional representation. This was accordingly done and in the break-up for Kailashahar Sub-Division, her name figured at S.L. No. 4 of the merit list. On the basis of the said select list, the fourth Respondent herein by a memorandum dated 7.6.2002 issued offer of appointment to the post of Constable (female) to the Petitioner on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-6030/- per month with other admissible allowances whereupon the Petitioner communicated her acceptance and furnished all essential documents. On the basis of the said select list, the fourth Respondent herein by a memorandum dated 7.6.2002 issued offer of appointment to the post of Constable (female) to the Petitioner on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-6030/- per month with other admissible allowances whereupon the Petitioner communicated her acceptance and furnished all essential documents. But before she could join the post, the said Respondent by impugned order informed her that the offer of appointment issued in her favour had been cancelled. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the order of cancellation is not backed by justifiable reasons and, therefore, suffers from arbitrariness. On this ground, the order of cancellation has been called in question in the petition aforementioned. 3. The basic question under the above circumstances was what were the circumstances under which this official Respondent had to cancel the offer of appointment and whether the same is fair, reasonable and not visited by whim or arbitrariness Confronted with this question, the State Respondents in their counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit tried to justify the action contending, inter alia, that when the State-wise merit list prepared by the Recruitment Board was re-shuffled to ensure Sub-division-wise representation, it came to light after the Sub-division-wise merit list was approved, such re-shuffle of the merit list had upset the original State-wise merit list. It was also noticed that persons in lower position of the merit list came to be eligible in the Sub-divisional merit list at the expense of the more meritorious candidates who attained higher position in the original merit list. It has been admitted that after the approval of the Sub-division wise merit list was communicated to the district Superintendent of Police with direction to issue offer of appointment, the above anomalous position came to light and immediately thereafter instructions were issued to the said authorities not to issue of offers of appointment. When all other Superintendents of Police had carried out the instruction by keeping in abeyance the process of recruitment, the Superintendent of Police, North Tripura who did not receive the letter of instruction in time had issued offer of appointment in favour of the male and female candidates of the said district including the Respondent-writ Petitioner herein. When all other Superintendents of Police had carried out the instruction by keeping in abeyance the process of recruitment, the Superintendent of Police, North Tripura who did not receive the letter of instruction in time had issued offer of appointment in favour of the male and female candidates of the said district including the Respondent-writ Petitioner herein. However, to overcome the anomalous position, the State Respondents decided to abrogate the entire merit list of the female candidates and consequently, the fourth Respondent had to cancel the offer of appointment of the Respondent-writ Petitioner. It is strongly contended that mere inclusion of the name of the writ Petitioner in the select list has not conferred indefeasible right of appointment on her and that with honest and bona fide intention the merit list of the female candidates for the posts of Constable (female) had to be cancelled. This being policy decision in the exclusive domain of the executive, it has been argued that the writ petition in this circumstances was not maintainable. 4. We have heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the State and Mr. P.R. Barman, learned Counsel for the Respondent-writ Petitioner. 5. Learned Single Judge dealt with the rival contentions focusing on the substantial question whether the State Respondents had acted bona fide with fairness for justifiable reasons. Learned Single Judge noticed that there was no controversy regarding the selection process or selection of the Petitioner on merit and that on the basis of the original merit list or the Sub-divisional wise merit list she was entitled to be appointed against one of the vacancies of Constable (female). An argument was placed by Mr. P.R. Barman, learned Counsel for the Appellant herein before the learned Single Judge that the order impugned cancelling the offer of appointment was without any valid justification. In the order of cancellation, nothing was discernible to show whether there was any reason, much less valid reason, existed for cancelling the offer of appointment. If it is accepted that the Executive has the discretion to cancel offer of appointment of the persons duly selected through a recruitment process, it would amount to a mockery as such a situation would only demonstrate the Executive action as flown from arbitrary exercise of powers. 6. A counter argument was advanced by Mr. If it is accepted that the Executive has the discretion to cancel offer of appointment of the persons duly selected through a recruitment process, it would amount to a mockery as such a situation would only demonstrate the Executive action as flown from arbitrary exercise of powers. 6. A counter argument was advanced by Mr. T.K. Roy, learned Advocate General for the State harping on the right of the candidates by saying that mere inclusion of the select list does not confer any indefeasible right of appointment and the appointing authority had all the powers to cancel such offer of appointment in appropriate situation. In the case on hand, it was argued by him that an anomalous situation had appeared when the approved Sub-division-wise list had upset the original merit list and when the anomaly was brought to notice, the State Respondents acted quickly by directing to keep in abeyance the process of recruitment and finally abrogated the entire select list with decision to a fresh process of recruitment. Pointing out that candidates holding higher position in the merit list than the Petitioner were also denied appointments, Mr. Roy tried to bring home his contention that in such a situation, the Respondent-writ Petitioner had no right at all to question the impugned order of cancellation which does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. 7. Learned Single Judge has extensively dealt with the question relating to right of a candidate whose name has found place in the select list through a recruitment process and the powers of the competent authority to cancel such list in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several decisions one of which is Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1997) 2 SCC 573. The Apex Court observed in that case that when following a requisition/request a select list is prepared after conducting written test and interview, the Government cannot quietly and without good and valid reason nullify the same and tell the candidates that they have no legal right to appointment. No Government can adopt such a stand without any justification. The Apex Court observed in that case that when following a requisition/request a select list is prepared after conducting written test and interview, the Government cannot quietly and without good and valid reason nullify the same and tell the candidates that they have no legal right to appointment. No Government can adopt such a stand without any justification. In R.S. Mittal v. Union of India reported in 1955 (2) SCC 230, the Apex Court observed that although a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel on its whims and decline to make appointments. When a person has been selected by a selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. 8. Proceeding from the settled legal principles noticed above, the learned Single Judge analyzed the situation of the case on hand and found that in the same recruitment process, out of 848 vacancies of Constable (male) only 425 candidates (male) were approved for appointment by the State Government. In the case of select list for female Constables, out of 47 candidates, only 27 were approved for appointment. But later when the anomaly arising from preparation of Sub-divisional merit list came to light, the State Respondents after initial instruction of keeping in abeyance the recruitment process approved the original merit list for 425 vacancies. But in the case of female candidates, the entire select list was cancelled for which no good or justifiable reasons was discernible from the impugned order or other supported documents. This being the position, the learned Single Judge came to hold that such cancellation of the entire merit list dehors any rhyme or reason, smacks of arbitrariness and fails the test of reasonableness on the touchstone of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Thus, the impugned order came to be quashed. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and found no new light from their submissions except what were placed before the learned Single Judge which we have noticed above. Thus, the impugned order came to be quashed. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and found no new light from their submissions except what were placed before the learned Single Judge which we have noticed above. There cannot be two opinions about the principles to be strictly followed in the matter of public employment which have been crystallized by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the philosophy and spirit of the equality clause of the Constitution. In a democracy such as ours, the rule of law is its main essence and two cornerstones of the rule of law are righteousness and justice. A democratic Government shall rule according to law not by whim or caprice. There is no room for arbitrariness in democratic functioning of a Government. When it is absolutely correct that mere inclusion through a recruitment process on merit does not confer any indefeasible right on a selectee, it is also true that the authority denying appointment to the selectee cannot act without any valid reason and it is a constitutional obligation on the part of such authority to explain by speaking order the reason for such denial which must be justifiable and should not smack any element of arbitrariness. In the case on hand, the State Respondents concerned cancelled the offer of appointment of the Respondent-writ Petitioner who has been selected through a recruitment process purely on merit without providing any reason, much less a justifiable reason, for cancellation and, therefore, we entirely in agreement with the learned Single Judge that such an order dehors justifiable reasons cannot be allowed to survive. 10. For the discussions and reasons aforementioned, we are of the firm view that the judgment impugned does not call for any interference by us and, therefore, this writ appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed