Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2339 (JHR)

Dhananjay Singh, Son of Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand

2018-10-24

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2018
JUDGMENT : The dispute in this appeal relates to selection process for the post of Deputy Administrator, Sports Authority of Jharkhand. Advertisement for the said post was issued on 11th December, 2013 and the appellant-writ petitioner had responded to such advertisement. It is his case that his name was recommended for the said post through the regular selection process undertaken by the authorities. The authorities however, abandoned the selection process on the ground that there were too few applicants meeting the eligibility criteria. 2. We find from the order cancelling the selection process, a copy of which has been made annexure to the memorandum of appeal, that there were altogether 39 applicants and only two out of them were found to be satisfying the eligibility criteria. The authorities for this reason chose to recommence selection process so that there could be more applicants. The learned First Court dismissed the writ petition by which the aforesaid action was challenged finding that the appellant had acquired no vested legal right solely on the basis of the recommendation. 3. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though mere recommendation may not give rise to any legal right, arbitrary exclusion from the selection process or abandonment of the selection process altogether without valid reason is justiciable. He has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Versus Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 in support of his submission on this count. He has also argued that the rules of the game have been changed midway in not completing the selection process, which is impermissible. 4. We have gone through Annexure-10 of the memorandum of appeal and find the reasons disclosed therein for cancellation of the selection process to be reasonable. This is not a case where the rules of the game were being changed midway, but the match itself has been abandoned. 5. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned First Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.