ORDER 1. This Appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 5.3.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.12905/2019. 2. The writ petition was directed against the notice dated 22.6.2019 issued by the Registrar of Appellant University, notifying cancellation of selection process for the post of Programme Assistants–Computer Science. The cancellation was allegedly on the ground that there was no post reserved for physically handicapped persons. 3. Learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that in advertisement dated 16.4.2018, besides the posts of Programme Assistant – Computer Science, 14 different categories of posts were advertised by the University and though the reservation of 6% as per State Government’s Circular dated 31.3.2005 was carved out for the persons who were physically handicapped, yet only the post of Programme Assistant – Computer Science was carved out by cancelling the process of selection, whereas in other categories the process was completed and appointments were made, faulted with the action being discriminatory. Accordingly, quashed the notice dated 22.6.2019 and directed to complete the process of appointment. 4. Though an exception is taken to the impugned order on the ground that no right had accrued in the petitioner to challenge the cancellation, because mere participation does not create any right. It is urged that learned Single Judge lost sight of the fact that unfilled vacancies of physically handicapped were required to be carry forward. And that being an employer it was well within authority of University to have cancelled the selection process. It is accordingly urged that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 5. It is urged that learned Single Judge lost sight of the fact that unfilled vacancies of physically handicapped were required to be carry forward. And that being an employer it was well within authority of University to have cancelled the selection process. It is accordingly urged that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 5. The notice dated 22.6.2019 impugned in the Writ Petition is reproduced for ready reference: ^^tokgj yky usg: d`f"k fo’ofo|ky;] tcyiqj Øekad LFkkŒ ,d@foKkiu Øekad 03-310 fnukad% 22-6-2019 lwpuk tokgj yky usg: d`f"k fo’ofo|ky;] tcyiqj }kjk tkjh foKkiu Øekad vkbZŒihŒvkjŒvksŒ@,ŒMhŒohŒVhŒ@dsŒohŒdsŒ@jftLVj@2018&19@13 fnukad 16-4-2018 ds varxZr ¼lh&13½ esa dk;ZØe lgk;d dEI;wVj lkbal ds dqy 8 inksa ¼vkukjf{kr&02 in vuqlwfpr tkfr&01 in vu&qtutkfr&03 in vŒfiŒoxZ&02 in½ ds fy, vkosnu vkeaf=r dj p;u çfØ;k vkjaHk dh xbZ FkhA mijksDr çfØ;k esa vkj{k.k laca/kh folaxfr;ksa dh f’kdk;r çkIr gksus ij muds ijh{k.k mijkUr ik;k x;k fd fnO;kaxtu vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e&2016 ,oa fu;e 2017 dk iw.kZr%ikyu u fd;s tkus ls p;u çfØ;k nwf"kr@=qfViw.kZ gks xbZA vr% mijksDr vk/kkj ij dk;ZØe lgk;d&dEIwVj lkbZUl ds in dh p;u çfØ;k dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA mDr foKkiu ds varxZr ¼lh&13½ ¼dk;ZØe lgk;d&dEIwVj lkbZUl½ ds ifjçs{; esa tek dh xbZ vkosnu ’kqYd dh jkf’k dks okil çkIr djus gsrq fu/kkZfjr çi= fo’ofo|ky; dh osclkbZVl ls MkmuyksM dj iw.kZ tkudkjh çfo"V dj v|ksgLrk{kjdrkZ dks fu/kkZfjr frFkh 24-8-2019 rd çLrqr djsaA gLrk{kj fnukad&22-6-2019 dqylfpoA** 6. Evidently, the selection process stood cancelled because of nonfollowing the stipulations contained in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and the Rights of Person with Disabilities Rules 2017. The advertisement dated 16.4.2018 which is on record at page 44 of the compilation records inviting applications for the following posts under Krishi Vigyan Kendra and under Government of India Projects, viz. 1. Post under Krishi Vigyan Kendra:- (a) Senior Scientist & Head:- Scale of Pay: 37400-67000+AGP 9000/- S. No. Discipline Category UR SC ST OBC 1. Multidiscipline 02 03 04 -- (b) Scientist:- Scale of Pay: 15600 – 39100+AGP 6000/- Discipline UR SC ST OBC 2. Food Science/Home Science 01 -- -- -- (c) Programme Assistant: Scale  of  Pay: 9300-34800+AGP 4200/- Discipline UR SC ST OBC 3. Agronomy -- -- 01 -- 4. Extension Education 01 01 5. Plant Protection 01 6. Veterinary Science & A.H. (L.P.M.) 01 01 01 7. Soil Science & Agril. Chemistry 01 8. Agriculture Engineering 01 9. Plant Breeding & Genetics 02 01 10. Agronomy -- -- 01 -- 4. Extension Education 01 01 5. Plant Protection 01 6. Veterinary Science & A.H. (L.P.M.) 01 01 01 7. Soil Science & Agril. Chemistry 01 8. Agriculture Engineering 01 9. Plant Breeding & Genetics 02 01 10. Agro-Forestry 01 11 Home Science/Food Science 03 01 01 12. Horticulture 01 -- 01 13. Computer Science 02 01 03 02 Note 3 of the advertisement categorically stipulated: “3. There shall be 6% reservation for the Blind, Deaf and other physically handicapped persons for vacancies as per M.P. Government GAD No. Øekad ,Q@8@2004@vkŒÁŒ@,d Hkskiky fnukad 31-3-2005 and instruction/amendment issued from time to time.” 7. The reservation of 6% for physically handicapped persons was apparently in respect of all the posts. And if there was any discrepancy qua stipulations contained in Act of 2016 and the Rules of 2017 made thereunder, it was for all the posts and not alone of Programme Assistant – Computer Science. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 , it is held : “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. 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. Subhash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268 and Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122 .” 8. 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 Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268 and Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122 .” 8. The test laid down for cancellation for selection process is that it must be for bonafide and appropriate reasons and that no discrimination is permitted. In the case at hand, no plausible reasons are assigned for not cancelling selection process of other posts wherefor also 6% reservation for physically handicapped persons was provided and that the stipulations in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rights of Person with Disabilities Rules, 2017 were not apparently followed, yet the University singled out the post of Programme Assistant – Computer Science which, as rightly held by learned Single Judge, was discriminatory. 9. In view whereof, we decline indulgence. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.