JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition is directed against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6th of December, 2010 upholding the decision of respondents of canceling the selection process held for the post of Map Mounter which is selection post vide order dated 6th of November, 2008. 2. The necessary facts which can be culled out for proper appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioner initially appointed as Darban (Group-D) vide order dated 28th of July, 1995. It will be relevant to record that in Group-D cadre there are other posts like Daftari, Jamadar, Safaiwala, Binder and Mali who are also the members of Group-D cadre subject to their academic qualifications experience are eligible for promotion for the post of Map Mounter in Group-C cadre, which is selection post to be filled by promotion and as per the procedure for recruitment provided under the Scheme of Rules, 75% quota is to be filled from Group-D cadre with six years regular service in one or more Group-D cadre of Geological Survey of India subject to passing the Trade Test to be filled by selection by the DPC constituted by the department. 3. As per the recruitment Rules provided for the post of Map Mounter, the extract to the relevant Recruitment Rules is reproduced ad infra:- "Recruitment Rules For The Post Of Map Mounter In G.S.I. 1. Sl.No. : 2. Name of Post : Map Mounter 3. No. of post. : 46 4. Classification : General Central Service, Group'C' (Non-Ministerial/Non-Gazetted). 5. Scale of pay : Rs. 260-6-325-EB-8-350 6. Whether selection or Non-selection. : Selection. 7. Age for direct rectt. : Not exceeding 28 years (relaxable upto 35 years for Govt. Servant). Note: The crucial date for determining the age limit shall be the closing date for submit of applications from candidates in India (other than the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep). In case of appointment to be made through the Employment Exchanges, the crucial date for determining the age limit shall be the last date upto which the Employment Exchanges are asked to submit the names. 8. Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment. : Class-VIII standard pass with at least 3 years practical experience in mounting work. 9. Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in case of promotion. : No 10. Period of probation : : 2 years. 11. 8. Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment. : Class-VIII standard pass with at least 3 years practical experience in mounting work. 9. Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in case of promotion. : No 10. Period of probation : : 2 years. 11. Method of recruitment whether by direct rectt. or by promotion or deputation/transfer and percentage of vacancies to be filled by various method. : By promotion failing which by direct Recruitment. 12. In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/ transfer grade from which promotion/deputation/transfer to be made. : Promotion: 25% from the grade of Label Writer with 6 years' regular service in the grade and subject to passing a suitable trade test to be conducted by the Director General, Geological Survey of India 75% from the Group 'D' cadres of Jamadar, Daftry,Daftry Grade-I, Safaiwala, Durwan, Binder and Mali with 6 years' regular service in one or more Group 'D' cadres of Geological Survey of India subject to passing the trade test. 13. If D.P.C. Exists what is its composition : Group 'C' Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of:- 1. A Mechanical Engineer (Sr.) or an officer of equivalent rank of Geological Survey of India. : Chairman 2. A senior Administrative Officer of Geological Survey of India. : Member 3. A Group 'A' Officer from other Central Govt. Deptt. : Member 4. A Group 'A' Officer of Geological Survey of India preferably belonging to the scheduled caste or the scheduled tribe community. : Member 14. Circumstances in which the UPSC is to be consulted in making recruitment. : Not applicable" 4. : Member 3. A Group 'A' Officer from other Central Govt. Deptt. : Member 4. A Group 'A' Officer of Geological Survey of India preferably belonging to the scheduled caste or the scheduled tribe community. : Member 14. Circumstances in which the UPSC is to be consulted in making recruitment. : Not applicable" 4. As per the Scheme of Rules, the post of Map Mounter is a selection post to be filled by promotion which is in the cadre of Group-C post (Non-Ministerial/Non-Gazetted) to be filled by promotion failing which by direct recruitment and the promotion quota is divided amongst two feeder cadres and 25% quota is to be filled from the grade of Label Writer with six years of regular service in the grade and subject to qualifying the Trade Test and the remaining 75% quota is to be filled from Group-D cadre with six years of regular service in one or more Group-D cadre subject to passing the Trade Test and thus the incumbents who qualify the Trade Test are to be considered by the DPC constituted by the department and such of the persons who have finally been recommended by the Committee obviously based on their record of service are considered for promotion to the post of Map Mounter. 5. As it manifests from the record, the process was initiated by the respondents by issuance of Circular dated 6th of November, 2008 inviting applications for filling the post of Map Mounter against single unreserved post and opportunity was afforded to such persons who are members of Group-D cadre and fulfill the conditions of eligibility to appear in the Trade Test, as per the Scheme of Rules and such of the persons/applicants who submitted their applications and eligible to appear in the Trade Test were permitted to appear vide order dated 25th November, 2008 which was held on 27th November, 2008. As a matter of fact, as per the incumbency statement which is placed by the respondents on record before the ld. Tribunal as on 31st October, 2008, 102 persons were working in the cadre of Group-D against sanctioned strength of 215 and as it reveals the sanctioned strength of other posts like Daftry, Jamadar, Binder, Mali & Safiwala is very minimal. Tribunal as on 31st October, 2008, 102 persons were working in the cadre of Group-D against sanctioned strength of 215 and as it reveals the sanctioned strength of other posts like Daftry, Jamadar, Binder, Mali & Safiwala is very minimal. At the same time, the cadre strength of the post of Darban is 172 against which 71 persons were working and out of 102 incumbents who are working in Group-D cadre and those who submitted applications to participate in the selection process initiated vide circular dated 6th of November, 2008, ten of them were found to be eligible and were permitted to appear in the Trade Test. Out of ten candidates one Kailash Chand, Safaiwala did not appear in the Trade Test and out of nine, who appeared in the Trade Test held on 27th of November, 2008, four qualified with the minimum qualifying marks prescribed and the present petitioner secured highest marks of 92 out of 100 and others who qualified the Trade Test secured 85, 65 & 71 marks respectively. When the matter was placed before the DPC, constituted for promotion to the post of Map Mounter in its meeting held on 8th December, 2008 it did not considered appropriate to examine the service record of the incumbents who qualified the Trade Test to fill the unreserved posts of Map Mounter, however, since only nine persons appeared from Group-D cadre in the Trade Test and senior persons, as alleged, had not appeared, the Committee was of the view to ascertain as to whether ample opportunity was provided to the senior persons as per the seniority list and as there was only one post of Map Mounter, as per the guidelines laid down by the Geological Survey of India constituting the normal zone of consideration, the Committee was of the view that it is not clear as to whether the officials have undertaken this exercise to inform such of the applicants who are falling under the normal zone of consideration for holding Trade Test and with certain directions finally observed that let a fresh Trade Test be conducted and thereafter the matter be re-submitted for consideration of the Committee. It would be appropriate to quote the minutes of the DPC which is relevant for the present purpose reads ad infra: "Minutes Of Meeting Of Departmental Promotion Committee Met On 08.12.2008 For Promotion To The Post Of Map Mounter. It would be appropriate to quote the minutes of the DPC which is relevant for the present purpose reads ad infra: "Minutes Of Meeting Of Departmental Promotion Committee Met On 08.12.2008 For Promotion To The Post Of Map Mounter. The Department Promotion Committee met on 08.12.2008 in room of Shri Rakesh Gupta, ME(Sr.) to consider the promotion to the post of Map Mounter. The committee observed the following point: (i) It was observed that only 09 group D personnel had appeared for Trade Test. It was seen that most of the senior personnel have been appeared for Trade Test. It is to be ascertained whether ample opportunity was provided to the senior officials as per the seniority list. (ii) There is only one post of Map Mounter. There are guildelines that fixed number of officials should constitute the normal zone of consideration. It is not clear whether the officials who are under the normal zone of consideration were informed about Trade Test. The following action is to be initiated before hand and case of re-submitted for consideration:- 1. Only eligible no. of candidate as per govt. guide lines for single post of map mounter be called for Trade Test. 2. Since the response of earlier circular was poor so the eligible candidates be provided with individual letter for appearing in Trade Test so that senior personnel also get the opportunity. 3. Fresh Trade Test be conducted and the case be re-submitted for consideration by the committee." 6. In view of the minutes of meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee, selection process initiated by the respondents pursuant to their circular dated 6th of November, 2008 was cancelled by the department vide its order dated 12th of March, 2009 and that was the subject matter of challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It will be appropriate to take note of the relevant facts that are borne out from the minutes of the Committee (DPC) placed by the respondents on record. It reveals that earlier when the Committee met for consideration for promotion to the post of Map Mounter on 8th of October, 1998 against one post, nine eligible persons find place in the list and Shri Om Prakash Meena, Binder was recommended for promotion. It reveals that earlier when the Committee met for consideration for promotion to the post of Map Mounter on 8th of October, 1998 against one post, nine eligible persons find place in the list and Shri Om Prakash Meena, Binder was recommended for promotion. Thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee again met on 20th of February, 2002 and as it reveals from the proceedings of DPC met for consideration for the post of Map Mounter, in all eleven applicants were considered and opportunity was afforded to them to appear in the Trade Test but out of eleven, five persons did not report for Trade Test and only six persons appeared and amongst the six who qualified the Trade Test falling in the normal zone of consideration, the present petitioner was also one of them and the Committee recommended the name of one Devi Narain and at the same time two persons were kept in reserve list and the present petitioner was placed at S.No.1 for being considered against future vacancies thereafter the petitioner was considered for promotion in the selection process initiated in the year 2008 which is impugned in the instant petition. 7. One of the objection of petitioner before the ld.Tribunal was that even after qualifying the Trade Test and securing highest marks still he may not have indefeasible right to be promoted to the post of Map Mounter but at least he has a legitimate expectation for his fair consideration on qualifying the Trade Test being eligible for promotion as per the guidelines laid down in the promotion policy by the respondents and at the same time, the respondents may not get a license of acting in an arbitrary manner to reject the process of selection without any reason or rhyme or reasonable justification and at the same time reasons which are assigned by the Committee are beyond its domain and according to the petitioner the Committee was only supposed to consider the suitability of such of the incumbents who qualified the Trade Test for the purpose of their suitability based on their record of service and his grievance was that the reasons assigned by the Committee are wholly unwarranted and the decision of the Committee being arbitrary, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. 8. Reply was filed by the respondents before the ld.Tribunal and it was interalia averred that since the Committee did not approved the process of selection initiated by the respondents and directed to initiate the process of holding Trade Test afresh, obviously it has to be cancelled in the light of the observations made by the Committee and accordingly the selection process was cancelled by the respondents vide order dated 12th of March, 2009. 9. The ld.Tribunal after taking note of the submissions made was of the view that no indefeasible right was conferred to the petitioner and the selection was not finalised and not a case of any malice being imputed against any of the member of Committee and after placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 207 [State of M.P. & Others v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Others] observed that no right being conferred in favour of the petitioner to seek promotion on the post of Map Mounter; did not consider it appropriate to interfere in the decision of the respondents canceling the process of selection initiated to fill the post of Map Mounter vide order dated 12th of March, 2009. 10. 10. First and the foremost contention advanced by counsel for petitioner is that he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Map Mounter and qualified the Trade Test and the Committee in the year 2002 recommended his case for promotion but he was in the waiting list at S.No.1 and at that time he could not be promoted because no future vacancy arose, at the same time in 2008 when the process of selection was initiated, he again appeared in the Trade Test and secured highest marks amongst four persons who qualified out of ten applicants appeared, at that time the Committee failed to considered the service record of such of the incumbents who qualified the Trade Test and were eligible for promotion and has recommended to cancel the process and initiate fresh Trade Test for the reason not connected to the selection process but that was not considered when such recommendations were earlier made against one single vacancy of Map Mounter in 1998, 2002 & 2003 and the present impugned decision of the Committee which has been made a basis by the respondents to cancel the selection vide order dated 12th March, 2009 was wholly arbitrary. 11. However, the ld. Tribunal observed that no indefeasible right being conferred to the petitioner but at the same time it failed to examine that if the decision making process of the respondent was arbitrary and has no reasonable nexus to support thereto certainly as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, such arbitrary decision deserves to be quashed and the process ought to have been taken to its logical conclusion, as per the guidelines laid down by the respondents regarding promotion to the post of Map Mounter and in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 [Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India] which was further considered in (2008) 1 SCC 448 [Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology & Anr. v. M. Pushkaran] and further followed in (2010) 7 SCC 678 [East Coast Railway & Anr. v. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors 12. v. M. Pushkaran] and further followed in (2010) 7 SCC 678 [East Coast Railway & Anr. v. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors 12. On the contrary, counsel for the respondents, while supporting the judgment of the ld.Tribunal, submits that the Committee has not finally recommended the case of the petitioner and submits that mere qualifying the Trade Test does not confer any right to the petitioner and in the absence of substantive right, if conferred, being infringed the decision of the Committee of cancelling the process is in conformity with the mandate of law and the ld.Tribunal has not committed any error in upholding their impugned cancellation and it does not call for any interference. 13. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the material on record. 14. As it reveals from the record and at least the facts remain undisputed that prior to the selection process which was initiated by the respondents for promotion to the post of Map Mounter pursuant to circular dated 6th of November, 2008 impugned herein, selection process was earlier initiated on 8th October, 1998 and nine persons qualified the Trade Test against one post of Map Mounter out of which one person namely Shri Om Prakash Meena, Binder, was recommended for promotion. When a single post again came for consideration for promotion of Map Mounter, the Committee on 20th of February, 2002 against single unreserved vacancy out of eleven applicants, who intended to participate in the selection process, six appeared for the Trade Test and the Committee upon scrutiny of their record of service recommended the name of Shri Devi Narain who was senior to the petitioner for promotion and the name of the petitioner was placed in the waiting list at S.No.1 for being considered against future vacancy but as no vacancy arose in future, the petitioner could not be considered for promotion. Thereafter again the process was initiated for holding promotion for the post of Map Mounter in 2003 amongst five candidates who qualified the Trade Test one Shri Ram Kishore Dhobi was recommended for promotion by the Committee in its meeting held on 10th of July, 2003 but when the process was initiated by the respondents for the post of Map Mounter vide circular dated 6th of November, 2008, ten persons who are members of Group-D cadre participated in the Trade Test held on 27th November, 2008 and the present petitioner secured highest marks i.e. 92 out of 100 amongst the four persons who qualified the Trade Test but the Committee failed to consider the candidature of such of the persons who qualified the Trade Test in its meeting held on 8th of December, 2008 and observed that against a single post of Map Mounter candidates be called in terms of Government guidelines and opportunity be afforded to senior officials as per the seniority list and the Trade Test be held afresh. 15. In our considered view what has been noticed by the Committee in its meeting dated 8th of December, 2008 was wholly unwarranted and not in its domain and was not in conformity with the mandate of law which the Committee was supposed to look into, as contemplated under the Scheme formulated by the respondents for filling the post of Map Mounter by selection through promotion. 16. This court also finds substance in the submission of counsel for petitioner that when the process was initiated earlier in the years 1998, 2002 & 2003 all the incumbents who qualified the Trade Test, their service record was assessed by the Committee and being a selection post person amongst those who qualified the Trade Test and found suitable, his name was recommended for promotion to the post of Map Mounter but what is being noticed and considered by the Committee in the impugned meeting held on 8th of December, 2008 was wholly arbitrary and irrelevant for the purpose of consideration amongst those who qualified the Trade Test for promotion to the post of Map Mounter. What was incumbent upon the Committee was to consider the service record of such of the incumbents who qualified the Trade Test for filling the post of Map Mounter by selection but that exercise was not undertaken by the Committee and the reason assigned by the respondents in cancelling the process vide order dated 12th of March, 2009 that could not be held legally sustainable. 17. The ld.Tribunal, in our opinion, has failed to examine that the incumbents who qualified the Trade Test may not be conferred with any indefeasible right but at the same time there could not be any license granted to the authority of acting in an arbitrary manner in cancelling the selection process which is not in conformity with the mandate of law. 18. In our considered view, the ld.Tribunal has committed a clear manifest error of law in recording a finding that if indefeasible right has not been conferred, interference is not called for and this finding recorded by the ld.Tribunal is not sustainable and our view is being strengthened by the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Shankarsan Dash's case (supra) where the Apex Court has observed that mere selection may not confer right to the incumbent but at the same time the State or its authorities has no license of acting in an arbitrary manner and unless the reasons assigned while taking decision to cancel the process is being meted out with the mandate of law the State or its authorities' action is not beyond the scope of judicial review and if any decision is found to be arbitrary appropriate directions can always be issued in the matter by the court of law. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the judgment in Shankarsan Dash's case (supra) which is ad infra: "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies 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. 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 has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if 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. Subash Chander Marwaha , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab." 19. The aforesaid judgment was further considered by the Apex Court in East Coast Railway's case (supra) and it would be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the judgment which is ad infra: "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." 20. The Apex Court is consistent in its view that the candidate on selection may not acquire any indefeasible right to a post but at the same time, the State or its authorities do not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse appointment in an arbitrary manner or to disregard the merit of the incumbent as reflected by the select list prepared at the end of the selection process. It is true that each case is to be looked into on its own facts but in the instant case the practice followed by the department, of which reference has been made supra in the years 1998, 2002 & 2003 itself indicates that the suitability of all the incumbents who were members of Group-D and qualified the Trade Test, was adjudged by the Committee and Map Mounter being a selection post the most suitable incumbent amongst them was recommended for promotion but this time in the impugned selection process initiated in the year 2008 the Committee failed to consider the overall suitability to fill the single post of Map Mounter after examining the service record of the applicants who qualified the Trade Test and has taken note of irrelevant consideration which was not at all remotely related for the Committee to consider and the action of the Committee being wholly arbitrary, the same cannot be approved by this court. 21. The ld.Tribunal has in fact misdirected itself in its approach while proceeding on the view that if indefeasible rights has not been conferred, it does not require interference but it has failed to consider that if the incumbent may not have indefeasible right to be selected but it is the legal duty of the State or its authorities to be fair enough in its decision making process and if that is held to be arbitrary, it is always open to be examined within the limited scope of judicial review and if that is not in conformity with the mandate of law, can certainly be interfered by the court. 22. The submission made by counsel for respondent that as per the office memorandum dated 6th January, 2006 against one vacancy there would be a zone of consideration of 5 eligible persons in the extended zone of consideration for calling the persons in Trade Test. The Committee was justified in annulling the process and directing the department to initiate the process again as per the procedure of law. 23. The Committee was justified in annulling the process and directing the department to initiate the process again as per the procedure of law. 23. The submission is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that selection process was initiated by calling eligible applicants from members of Group-D to appear in the Trade Test and those who appeared and qualified the Trade Test, their list in descending order, as per the marks secured, was to be prepared of at least five incumbents who constitute the zone of consideration and their record of service was to be examined by the Committee. 24. In the instant case, ten applicants submitted their applications for appearing in the Trade Test pursuant to the circular dated 6th November, 2008, however, nine appeared and four qualified, amongst whom the petitioner secured the highest marks and was admittedly in the zone of consideration in terms of the circular of Government of India dated 6th January, 2006 and as regards overall suitability, being a selection posts, it was for the Committee to examine the suitability of the applicants who qualified in the Trade Test and are in the zone of consideration but as already observed, the Committee misdirected itself and took into consideration irrelevant considerations while annulling the process of selection and directing the department to initiate the process afresh, however, at the same time it was not the case of the respondents that circular dated 6th November, 2008 has not been given wide publicity while calling applications from such of the employees who are members of Group-D and eligible to appear in the Trade Test or there was any complaint by any of the so-called alleged senior eligible member of Group-D who has been left out from appearing in the Trade Test. In these facts and circumstances, the decision of the Committee could not be approved by this court. 25. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. In these facts and circumstances, the decision of the Committee could not be approved by this court. 25. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dated 6th of December, 2010 passed by the ld.Tribunal so also the decision of respondents canceling the process of selection vide order dated 12th March, 2009 initiated pursuant to circular dated 6th of November, 2008 are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to go ahead with the selection process further and refer the matter back to the Committee to consider the candidature of the incumbents who qualified the Trade Test for promotion to the post of Map Mounter and take appropriate decision, as per the Scheme of Recruitment Rules. The exercise, as indicated above, be undertaken by the department within three months. No costs.Petition Allowed. *******