JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) - Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-University and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 2. The jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , has been invoked by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 07.01.2016 and 29.06.2017 passed by the fourth respondent herein, and the order dated 29.06.2017 passed by the third respondent herein; and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Accounts Officer. 3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the respondent- University issued an advertisement on 31.07.2015 inviting applications for recruitment to three posts of Accounts Officer under the direct recruitment quota. The advertisement prescribed the eligibility criteria as a Bachelors degree from a recognized university with three years Accounts/Audit experience in Universities/Educational Institution/Institutions of the State Government or Central Government. Preference was to be given to SAS (Sub-ordinate Account/Audit Service) or ACA (Associate Chartered Accountants). The petitioner applied for the post of Accounts Officer pursuant to the said advertisement. Thereafter, a written examination was held, and the petitioner is said to have been selected for appointment as an Accounts Officer. 4. While matters stood thus, a notification was issued on 10.01.2016 in a daily newspaper cancelling the recruitment process, for the post of Accounts Officer, on the ground that there was a variance in the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement vis--vis the qualifications prescribed in the Rules. Questioning the action of the respondent-University, in cancelling the selection process, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. The case of the respondent-University is that the selection process was required to be cancelled since the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was at variance with the qualifications prescribed in the applicable Rules and, consequently, the respondent-University had no other alternative but to cancel the entire selection process commencing from the advertisement itself. 6. While fairly stating that the selected candidate has no right to claim appointment merely because he was selected, Mr. 6. While fairly stating that the selected candidate has no right to claim appointment merely because he was selected, Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that cancellation of the selection process can, nonetheless, be questioned, in judicial review proceedings, in case such cancellation is either arbitrary or is vitiated by malice. 7. Since reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel on East Costal Railway & another vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & others: (2010) 7 SCC 678 , it is useful to refer to the law declared therein. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:- '.. 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. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and Ors: (1993) 1 SCC 154 where again this Court reiterated that while a candidate who finds a place in the select list may have no vested right to be appointed to any post, in the absence of any specific rules entitling him to the same, he may still be aggrieved of his non-appointment if the authority concerned acts arbitrarily or in a malafide manner. That was also a case where selection process had been cancelled by the Chandigarh Administration upon receipt of complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which the select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection Board. An inquiry got conducted into the said complaint proved the allegations made in the complaint to be true. An inquiry got conducted into the said complaint proved the allegations made in the complaint to be true. It was in that backdrop that action taken by the Chandigarh Administration was held to be neither discriminatory nor unjustified as the same was duly supported by valid reasons for cancelling what was described by this Court to be as a "dubious selection"' (emphasis supplied) 8. Since it is not even the case of the petitioner that the said advertisement is vitiated by malice, it would suffice for us to examine whether cancellation of the advertisement, by the respondent-University, is arbitrary. 9. As noted hereinabove, the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement is a Bachelors degree from a recognized university with three years experience in Accounts/Audit in Universities/Educational Institution/Institutions of the State Government or Central Government. The Rules, on the other hand, stipulate three years experience in the educational institution of an University, or the institutions of the State Government or Central Government. While the Rules disentitled persons, having three years experience in an educational institution which is not under the control of a University, from being considered eligible for appointment to the post of Accounts Officer, the advertisement, by the use of a hyphen (/) has made even those persons who have three years experience in any educational institution, and not necessarily in an educational institution under the control of the University, eligible for appointment. 10. It is evident, therefore, that there is a variance in the experience criteria stipulated in the advertisement vis--vis the experience prescribed in the Rules. Consequently, the action of the respondent-University in cancelling the advertisement cannot be said to be arbitrary. As long as the cancellation of the advertisement does not suffer from arbitrariness, the selected candidate cannot claim appointment, to the post of Accounts Officer, as of right. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are satisfied that the respondent- University was justified in cancelling the advertisement in the light of the variance in the experience criteria stipulated in the advertisement vis--vis those stipulated in the statutory Rules. The petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. 12. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.