JUDGMENT : Sanjay Dhar, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged advertisement notice bearing No.NIT/Non-Teaching-Recruitment/2020/6(NT) dated 14.10.2020, issued by respondent No.3, whereby applications have been invited from eligible candidates for recruitment to certain non-teaching posts including the post of Assistant Librarian. 2. According to the petitioner he had participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Librarian that was initiated by the respondents pursuant to their earlier advertisement notice bearing No.04-F of 2018 dated 14.06.2018. It is the case of petitioner that after qualifying the written test, he along with five more candidates was shortlisted for interview which was scheduled to be held on 23.05.2019. It is averred that the petitioner appeared in the said interview and fared extremely well, as a result of which he was sure of his selection. It is contended that the respondents even after completing the selection process did not issue final select list which compelled the petitioner to file a representation dated 10.12.2019 but no action was taken by respondents on his representation. Ultimately the respondents instead of issuing the final select list, issued the impugned advertisement notice whereby the post of Assistant Librarian has been re-advertised. 3. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action of respondents on the ground that the issuance of fresh advertisement notice by respondents is arbitrary and unreasonable; that respondents are not justified in leaving the selection process midway and issue a fresh advertisement notice; that the respondents are bound to finalize the selection process in a time bound manner and, as such, abandoning the selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement notice of the year 2018 is unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 4. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, respondents have submitted that the minutes of the Selection Committee that was constituted pursuant to the issuance of advertisement notice of the year 2018 were placed in 99th Board of Governors meeting of respondent Institute for approval as Agenda Item No.08/99. It was observed by the Board of Governors that the Registrar of the Institute was not part of the Selection Committee which is a requirement as per the Statutes of National Institutes of Technology, as such, it was decided that a legal opinion be sought before issuing the appointment order in favour of the recommended candidate. It was observed by the Board of Governors that the Registrar of the Institute was not part of the Selection Committee which is a requirement as per the Statutes of National Institutes of Technology, as such, it was decided that a legal opinion be sought before issuing the appointment order in favour of the recommended candidate. The matter was, accordingly, taken up by the respondent Institute with two of its Standing Counsels and an opinion was received which was placed before the Board of Governors. The said opinion was considered by the Board of Governors and in terms of Resolution No.08/101 dated 19.10.2019, it was decided that the post of Assistant Librarian be re-advertised. Accordingly, the respondent Institute has issued the impugned advertisement notice. 5. In short, the contention of respondents is that constitution of the Selection Committee which undertook the selection process pursuant to the advertisement notice of 2018 was not in accordance with the provisions of National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 and the Statutes framed thereunder. It is contended that as per Clause 5 of Statute 23, the Selection Committee in the case of the post of Assistant Librarian must consist of Registrar of the Institute as well. However, in the present case, the Registrar of the Institute was not a part of the Selection Committee, as such, the Board of Governors decided not to take forward the selection process and to re-advertise the post. The respondents have taken a firm stand in their reply that the Selection Committee that was constituted to undertake selection process pursuant to the advertisement notice of 2018 did not recommend the name of the petitioner and thus they have denied the claim of the petitioner that he was sure to figure in the merit list. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. Certain facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Librarian pursuant to the advertisement notice of 2018 and had participated in the selection process. He had qualified the written test and had also appeared in the interview. According to the petitioner he had fared very well in the interview and was sure to get selected which fact has been disputed by the respondents in their reply affidavit. He had qualified the written test and had also appeared in the interview. According to the petitioner he had fared very well in the interview and was sure to get selected which fact has been disputed by the respondents in their reply affidavit. The petitioner has challenged the action of re-advertising the post of Assistant Librarian by the respondents as according to him such action of the respondents is arbitrary and unreasonable. The justification for abandoning the selection process given by the respondents is that the Selection Committee which undertook the process of selection pursuant to advertisement notice of 2018 was not constituted in accordance with the Statute and in order to cure this defect, the Board of Governors decided to re-advertise the post of Assistant Librarian. 8. The question that falls for determination is as to whether any enforceable legal right has accrued in favour of the petitioner by qualifying the written test and participating in the interview process, which right the respondents could not have legitimately denied to him. 9. It is settled law that advertisement notice does not confer any right on a candidate who responds to the notice, to be considered for advertised post, to ask for finalization of the selection process or a right to oppose withdrawal of the post advertised or to resist the abandonment of the selection process. The Supreme Court in the case of P. K. Jaiswal vs. Debi Mukherjee & Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 148 , has held that the right to be considered for selection crystallizes only if the candidate is called for interview after advertisement. 10. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 , the Supreme Court, while examining as to whether a candidate seeking appointment to a civil post can be regarded to have acquired an indefeasible right to appointment against such post merely because his name appeared in the merit list of candidates for such post, observed as under: “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. 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 the State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Others; Miss Neelima Shangla, Ph.D. candidate v. State of Haryana and Others, or Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others.” 11. In Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and others, (1991) 1 SCC 154 , the Supreme 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. 12. In Jatinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1985) 1 SCC 122 , the Supreme Court held that the action of the Government in not appointing the candidates who were selected and recommended by the Services Selection Board but could not be appointed owing to reduction in number of vacancies, was not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the case of these candidates was not identical with those candidates who were appointed against the reduced number of vacancies. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of East Coast Railway and another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and others, (2010) 7 SCC 678 , while noticing its earlier judgments on the subject, has observed as under: “13. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of East Coast Railway and another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and others, (2010) 7 SCC 678 , while noticing its earlier judgments on the subject, has observed as under: “13. 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.” 14. In Kulwinder Pal Singh and another vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2016) 6 SCC 532 , it has been held that even if name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it does not give indefeasible right to appointment and it is always open to the Government not to fill up the vacancies. However, the aforesaid decision has to be reasonable and not arbitrary. 15. From the aforesaid enunciation of law on the subject, it is clear that merely because a candidate has participated in the selection process pursuant to an advertisement notice, does not give him an indefeasible right to seek a direction that selection process should be taken to its logical conclusion and that the institution issuing the advertisement notice is debarred from abandoning the process of selection. Of course, once a selection process is taken forward and the interview of the candidates is also conducted, the action of the concerned institution in abandoning the selection process and re-advertising the post must be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness and the same should not be actuated by any malafides. 16. Of course, once a selection process is taken forward and the interview of the candidates is also conducted, the action of the concerned institution in abandoning the selection process and re-advertising the post must be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness and the same should not be actuated by any malafides. 16. Coming to the facts of the instant case, the justification given by respondents in abandoning the selection process and issuance of fresh advertisement notice is that the Selection Committee that undertook the process of selection pursuant to the advertisement notice of the year 2018 was not properly constituted, inasmuch as Registrar of the respondent Institute was not a constituent of the said Committee. In this regard respondents have relied upon Clause (5) of Statute 23 of the First Statutes of the National Institutes of Technology that have been framed in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the National Institutes of Technology, Act, 2007. As per sub-clause (d) of Clause (5) of Statute 23, the Selection Committee for Senior Administrative and other comparable posts carrying pay scale of Lecturer and above comprises the following: (1) Director or Deputy Director Chairman (2) One Expert from outside the Institute Member (3) Nominee of Ministry of Human Resource Development Member (4) Nominee of Board Member (5) Registrar Member 17. Thus, as per the aforesaid Statute, Registrar is a necessary component of the Selection Committee for Senior Administrative and other comparable posts which includes the post of Assistant Librarian. According to the respondents, Registrar was not a member of the Committee which undertook the selection process pursuant to advertisement notice of 2018. Thus, the very constitution of the Selection Committee was defective. Therefore, carrying forward the selection process which was conducted by an incompetent selection body would have landed the respondent Institute into multiple litigations and the whole process of selection would have been rendered illegal and liable to be set aside. Thus, action of respondents whereby they abandoned the selection process and re-advertised the post is reasonable and justified. The petitioner merely by appearing in the interview did not get any enforceable legal right to selection and consequent appointment. The contention of petitioner is, therefore, without any substance and deserves to be rejected. 18. Thus, action of respondents whereby they abandoned the selection process and re-advertised the post is reasonable and justified. The petitioner merely by appearing in the interview did not get any enforceable legal right to selection and consequent appointment. The contention of petitioner is, therefore, without any substance and deserves to be rejected. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, during the course of arguments submitted that even if the constitution of Selection Committee was not as per the Statute, still then the respondents could hold fresh interview of the shortlisted candidates by changing constitution of the Interview Committee instead of abandoning the whole selection process. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Anamica Mishra v. U. P. Public Service Commission, (1990) Sup SCC 692 as also judgment of Patna High Court titled Sunil Kumar and others v. The Chairman, Railways Board and others, (2014) 1 PLJR 731 and judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Rajendra Kumar Patel and others, (2008) 4 MPHT 489 . 19. In Kumari Anamica Mishra’s case (supra), there was no defect in the constitution of the Selection Committee but it was a case where certain errors had crept in on account of improper feeding of data into computer as regards performance of the candidates in the written test which had resulted in shortlisting of some candidates for the interview who had actually secured lesser marks. There was nothing wrong in holding of the written test and it was in these circumstances that a direction was issued that the selection process be carried forwarded from the stage of interview by holding fresh interview. In the instant case, the Selection Committee which has undertaken the selection process from the very beginning is itself defective and, as such, the whole process is defective. Thus, merely by carrying forward the selection process from the stage of interview would not cure the defect in the selection process. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Anamica Mishra’s case (supra) is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of instant case. 20. Thus, merely by carrying forward the selection process from the stage of interview would not cure the defect in the selection process. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Anamica Mishra’s case (supra) is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of instant case. 20. Similarly, the judgments delivered by Patna High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and the ratio laid down therein is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 21. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CM(s).