ORDER : 1. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition is not in dispute. 2. On 01.01.2015, a notification was issued by respondent No.1 - Institution for recruitment to thirty posts of Assistant Professor. 3. 75% of said posts were reserved for Hyderabad Karnataka region candidates and 25% for non Hyderabad-Karnataka region candidates. 4. Pursuant to the said notification, petitioners submitted their applications and after they were interviewed by the Selection Committee, a provisional select list was published on 22.01.2015. 5. In this provisional select list, 17 candidates of Hyderabad-Karnataka region i.e., for the reserved posts were notified as provisionally selected and 5 candidates of non Hyderabad-Karnataka region were notified as provisionally selected. 6. This provisional select list was challenged by a host of unsuccessful candidates before this Court in a batch of writ petitions. 7. This Court, in those writ petitions, stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the recruitment notification. 8. In those batch of writ petitions, respondent No.1 entered appearance and justified the selections made by them. 9. However, during the pendency of the batch of writ petitions, a meeting of the Governing Council was conducted on 25.04.2017. In the said meeting, the Governing Council resolved to withdraw the recruitment notification itself and pursuant to the said resolution, a notification dated 05.08.2017 came to be issued stating that the recruitment notification dated 01.01.2015 was withdrawn. 10. It is this withdrawal of the recruitment notification that is impugned in this writ petition. 11. Sri Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners contended that though inclusion of a name in the select list may not confer any vested right in the candidates proposed to be selected, nevertheless, when the employer chooses to withdraw the notification, it is essential that there should be a justifiable reason for the same. He submitted that the contents of the resolution indicated that the notification was being withdrawn because of an interim order granted by this Court in a number of writ petitions, in which the question with regard to allocation of 3 marks instead of 6 marks to the candidates during the interview being in violation of the Rules had been raised and he submitted that that was not a justifiable reason for withdrawing the notification since the said marks were made applicable to all the candidates. 12. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the following cases: (a) R.S.Mittal Vs. Union of India - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230 (b) Haryana Public Service Commission Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Others - 1999 SCC (L & S) 1451 (c) AP Agarwal vs. Govt of NCT Delhi (2000) 1 SCC 600 AP Agarwal 13. He lastly submitted that withdrawal of the Government District Hospital from the control of respondent No.1 – Institution could not be a reason for withdrawal of the recruitment notification. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sri Anil Kumar, on the other hand, contended that Governing Council of respondent No.1, on consideration of various issues raised and deliberated in the meeting had decided that it would be prudent to withdraw the recruitment notification itself. 15. He submitted that withdrawal of Government District Hospital which has been attached to respondent No.1 – Institution was a factor which prompted respondent No.1 to withdraw the notification since the recruitment had been initiated based on the assumption that Government District Hospital would be attached to respondent No.1. 16. He submitted that since it is settled law that inclusion of a candidate in a select list did not confer any vested right to secure an appointment, the petitioners, who were not issued with any appointment order but were only included in the select list cannot claim any legal right for being appointed. 17. Learned counsel submitted that recruitment notification itself had specified that respondent No.1 had liberty to withdraw the recruitment notification without assigning any reason and the right to withdraw the notification could not be questioned by the petitioners who did not have a legal right to be appointed. 18. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and also the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 19. The only question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is: Whether an employer, who issues a notification proposing to recruit certain persons, has a right to withdraw the notification after issuing a select list and if so, whether the reasons provided by it for the withdrawal could be judged from the point of view of the persons who had been included in the select list? 20. 20. It cannot be in dispute that no candidate gets a vested right to claim appointment based on inclusion of his name in the select list. It cannot also be in dispute that it is open to the employer to take a decision either to proceed with the select list or abandon the recruitment process and go in for a fresh recruitment notification. 21. A reference may be made in this regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. and Others Vs. D.Dastagiri and Others - AIR 2003 SC 2475 and in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Malkiat Singh - AIR 2004 SC 5061 . 22. In fact, in the decision relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the case of R.S.Mittal cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has itself clearly held that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he/she had been selected and the only right available to the said person is to be considered for appointment. It is therefore clear that mere inclusion of a person in the select list will not create any legal right to seek for appointment. 23. Keeping this legal position in mind, it will have to be examined whether the petitioners have a legal right to challenge the withdrawal of recruitment notification. 24. It is no doubt true that an employer especially an instrumentality of the State cannot act arbitrarily and on its whims and fancies and every decision of an instrumentality of the State is required to be fair and in consonance with the principles evolved under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, a decision of an authority or an instrumentality of the State cannot be irrational or without any sound and justifiable reason. 25. In the instant case, the Governing Council which met on 25.04.2017 was asked to consider the following, subject, which is found in Annexure-J and which reads as under: 26. What could be gathered from the above is that the Council was informed about the challenge to the select list before this Court and the grant of an interim order by this Court. What could be gathered from the above is that the Council was informed about the challenge to the select list before this Court and the grant of an interim order by this Court. The note also stated that with effect from 01.04.2016, the District Government Hospital had been handed over to the Health and Family Welfare Department and the posts which had been notified would have to be reduced and in this regard, a proposal had also been sent to the Government and had also been received from the Government and as per which a modified notification to fill up both Teaching and non-teaching posts which were lying vacant. 27. The Governing Council, thereafter is stated to have deliberated on the issues and the decision of the Governing Council has been stated as follows: 28. According to learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the withdrawal of the notification was because this Court granted an interim order and the marks notified in the recruitment notification towards assessing the personality of the candidates was different from the one prescribed under the bye-laws. 29. He submitted that since respondent No.1 categorically contended in the batch of writ petitions that the selection made by it was legal and proper, the question of withdrawing the notification because of the pendency of the writ petition or the grant of an interim order was wholly improper and arbitrary. 30. He submitted that though the marks notified in the notification for assessment of the personality was contrary to the bye-laws, since the same set of marks was made applicable to all the candidates, the question of any prejudice being caused to any of the candidates would not arise and therefore, the notification could not be withdrawn on that ground. 31. It is submitted that since only these two reasons had prompted the Council to resolve to withdraw the notification, the same could not be sustained as they did not invalidate the recruitment notification in any manner. 32. In my view, this argument of the Learned Senior Counsel, cannot be accepted. As could be seen from the description of the subject which was placed before the Council, the Council was being notified to the pendency of the writ petition, the grant of an interim order and also the withdrawal of the Government District Hospital attached to the 1st respondent and the consequential reduction in number of posts. As could be seen from the description of the subject which was placed before the Council, the Council was being notified to the pendency of the writ petition, the grant of an interim order and also the withdrawal of the Government District Hospital attached to the 1st respondent and the consequential reduction in number of posts. A reading of the resolution does not, in my view, indicate that the Governing Council was withdrawing the recruitment notification only on the two grounds cited by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 33. The Governing Council’s resolution states that the entire issue was deliberated in detail and thereafter, a decision had been taken to withdraw the recruitment notification. The deliberations conducted by the Governing Council having regard to the sumarisation of the subject, necessarily encompass all matters relating to the recruitment notification, which was not only the pendency of the writ petition and the grant of interim orders but also the withdraw of the District Government Hospital and the consequential reduction in the number of posts. 34. It is to be noticed here that the Government District Hospital which had been attached to respondent no.1 had been withdrawn after the issuance of the recruitment notification and the respondent No.1 had had earlier issued the notification on the assumption that the Government District Hospital would be a part of the Institution. This withdrawal of the District Government Hospital from the 1st respondent-college was definitely a changed circumstance. If the Council was of the view that this withdrawal of the Hospital resulted in a reduced requirement on its part, necessitating the withdrawal of notification, the said reasoning cannot be said to be arbitrary or improper. 35. The exact extent of the deliberations, though is not forthcoming in detail in the resolution, it can be gathered from the description of the subject that the Council had indeed considered all the facets of the issues arising as a result of the pendency of the writ petitions and also the withdrawal of the Government Hospital and the Council after deliberation thought it desirable to withdraw the recruitment notification. 36. 36. If a body, such as Governing Council, comprised of eminent professionals who manage a Medical College, are of the considered view that the notification it had issued earlier to recruit 30 Assistant Professors deserved to be recalled and a fresh notification was to be issued, in my view, it would not be permissible for the persons whose names were found in the select list to contend that there was no valid reason for withdrawal of the notification. 37. It would also not be open for this Court to examine the correctness of the decision to withdraw the notification and so long as there was a tangible reason to withdraw the notification, the same will have to be accepted. It is no doubt true that if the decision to withdraw the notification was without any reason at all, this Court would definitely have the jurisdiction to set at naught the withdrawal of the notification. 38. However, it is to be kept in mind that it is basically for the employer to decide how many people would be required to man the Institution and in what manner they should be recruited. Merely because a notification had been issued proposing to recruit 30 people, the employer would not be bound to take that recruitment notification to its logical conclusion and appoint all 30 people. 39. The employer should always be considered to be conferred with the right and discretion to either proceed with the notification or withdraw the notification. If the employer has justifiable reasons to withdraw the notification, the same cannot be annulled at the behest of the persons included in the select list., especially, when it is settled law, the persons whose names were found in the select list get no vested right to be appointed. 40. As can be gathered from the resolution, the Governing Council took into consideration various factors including the pendency of the writ petitions, the withdrawal of the Government District Hospital and thereafter deliberated on the matter and resolved to withdraw the notification. This indicates that the Institute was of the view that it was not wise to proceed with the recruitment notification and it had resolved that a rethink on the issue of recruitment was necessary. 41. In my view, this cautious approach of respondent No.1 cannot be said to be a decision taken at the whims and fancies of the Institution. This indicates that the Institute was of the view that it was not wise to proceed with the recruitment notification and it had resolved that a rethink on the issue of recruitment was necessary. 41. In my view, this cautious approach of respondent No.1 cannot be said to be a decision taken at the whims and fancies of the Institution. On a perusal of the material on record, I am satisfied that the Institution has considered the matter in a holistic manner and has collectively decided that in the interest of the Institution, recruitment is required to be withdrawn. 42. It is also to be kept in mind that illegalities pointed out in a batch of writ petitions could also be a compelling 21 factor which prompted respondent No.1 to withdraw the notification. 43. It is also to be kept in mind that if subsequently it is found out by the Institution that the Institution did not actually require 30 Assistant Professors, the difficulty that the Institute would be faced with would be significant and it would cause serious prejudice to the Institution. In the light of this, if the Institution had chosen to act in a cautious manner, the same cannot be found fault with. 44. I am, therefore, of the view that the decision of withdrawal of notification which is impugned in this writ petition does not call for any interference and by answering the question in favour of the institution, the writ petition is dismissed.