ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In these writ petitions, petitioners have prayed to quash the decision dated 03.12.2019 contained in Ref. No.CCL/Rect./SG/2019/3648 taken by the respondents-Central Coalfields Limited, wherein they have decided to cancel the advertisement published for recruitment of 500 Security Guards vide Employment Notice No.CCL/G.M.(P&IR/R/527/2014/7104 dated 25.09.2014. Petitioners also pray to appoint them on the post of Security Guards as they have applied pursuant to the advertisement and fulfilled all the criteria for being appointed. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Central Coalfields Limited had published an advertisement No.CCL/G.M.(P&IR/R/527/2014/7104 dated 25.09.2014 through which they decided to recruit and appoint 500 Security Guards and persons in other technical posts, like, Accountant etc. Written test was conducted and these petitioners duly qualified the written test, but, thereafter the Central Coalfields Limited went silent and did not proceed with the recruitment process as a result of which petitioners had to approach this Court by filing these writ petitions. This Court by order dated 28.11.2019 had directed the Central Coalfields Limited to take a decision on the recruitment either way. Central Coalfields Limited, thereafter decided to cancel the recruitment so far as it related to appointment of 500 Security Guards is concerned. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid decision is absolutely illegal, as just because they had approached the High Court, the aforesaid decision was taken. Their contention is that the respondents, on one hand, went on with the appointment of other technical posts, but so far as Security Guards are concerned, they have abandoned the process, which is arbitrary. Their claim is that Central Coalfields Limited should proceed with the recruitment process and appoint the petitioners. Lastly they argued that the order is non-speaking and thus, cancellation of the process can be treated to be arbitrary as it does not fulfill the requirement of reasonableness. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents led by Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta submitted that whether to recruit or not to recruit is absolutely the prerogative of the employer, which cannot be questioned. Employer has right to abandon any recruitment process. No one has any right to be appointed. Thus, petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the decision wherein Central Coalfields Limited has decided to abandon and cancel the recruitment process. Employer has right to abandon any recruitment process. No one has any right to be appointed. Thus, petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the decision wherein Central Coalfields Limited has decided to abandon and cancel the recruitment process. It is their contention that the ground for cancellation is cogent and cannot be said to be arbitrary. As per them, there is a large number of workmen in Central Coalfields Limited, who were identified to be surplus. When it came to the notice that there was surplus manpower, it was decided that the excess manpower must be adjusted against the existing vacancy of Security Personnel. Further, there are large number of dependents seeking appointment on compassionate ground, so a policy decision was taken to appoint the applicants of compassionate ground against the existing vacancies of Security Guards. Thus, a conscious decision was taken by the Directors of the Company not to proceed with the advertisement to fill the posts of Security Personnel. So far as appointing Accountants and others, they submit that these are technical posts, thus, the respondents proceeded. Mr. Mehta further submits that the selection process was in three folds, first a written test, thereafter physical test and the third step was interview and in this case only the written test was conducted and the rest of the test processes were yet to be conducted. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 6. It is well settled principle of law that a person does not have any vested right of appointment. Even selectee has no indefeasible right to appointment nor is State under duty to fill up vacancies. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lt. CDR. M. Ramesh versus Union of India and Others reported in (2018) 16 SCC 195 while referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in other cases, at paragraphs 21 and 22 thereof, has held as under:- 21. The first issue that arises is whether the petitioners have any vested right to claim that the result must be declared and if the petitioners are selected, they should be appointed. The first issue that arises is whether the petitioners have any vested right to claim that the result must be declared and if the petitioners are selected, they should be appointed. This Court in Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana held that merely because the Government had sent a requisition to UPSC to select the candidates for appointments, did not create any vested right in the candidate called for the interview to be appointed. It was also held that the authority which has the power to specify the method of recruitment must be deemed to have the power to revise and substitute the same. The Court, however, also laid down that at best the Government may be required to justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. This view has been followed in a large number of cases. In Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Patna, this Court held that there is a distinction between selection and appointment. It was held that a person who is successful in the selection process, does not acquire any right to be appointed automatically. Such a person has no indefeasible right of appointment. 22. It is, thus, well settled that merely because a person has been selected does not given that person an indefeasible right of claiming appointment. As far as the present cases are concerned, results have not been declared and even the selection process is not complete. As such, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioners have no enforceable right to claim that the result should be declared or that they should be appointed if found meritorious. 7. Thus, it is well settled now that a person has got no right to be appointed. It is also the prerogative of the respondents to cancel an appointment process and keep any post vacant, but the decision not to fill up the post or keeping the posts vacant or that of cancelling the advertisement must be bonafide and should be for just and appropriate reasons. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shankarsan Das versus Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 while referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in other cases, at paragraph 7 thereof, has held as under:- 7. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shankarsan Das versus Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 while referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in other cases, at paragraph 7 thereof, has held as under:- 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, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab. 9. The reasons for cancelling should not be malafide or arbitrary or whimsical. Keeping that principle in view, I have gone through the reasonings, which have been given. Though the document, which the respondents have annexed, which suggests that the advertisement has been cancelled, is in one line only indicating that the respondents have cancelled the recruitment process but from the writ petitions and annexures filed therewith, it is clear that the petitioners were served with the information and reasons as to why recruitment process has been cancelled. Annexure 8 in W.P.(S) No. 7115 of 2017 suggests that following are grounds for cancelling the recruitment process:- • ... That a large number of workmen have been identified surplus strength of Manpower in the course of drafting Manpower Budget for the year 2017-18. Such excess manpower has been decided to be adjusted against existing vacancies of Security Personnel. Annexure 8 in W.P.(S) No. 7115 of 2017 suggests that following are grounds for cancelling the recruitment process:- • ... That a large number of workmen have been identified surplus strength of Manpower in the course of drafting Manpower Budget for the year 2017-18. Such excess manpower has been decided to be adjusted against existing vacancies of Security Personnel. • … Further, keeping in view the large number of pending applications for appointment on compassionate ground, a policy decision has been taken to make appointment of suitable candidates on compassionate ground against the existing vacancies of Security Personnel. • … In this view of the fact, presently the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.CCL/GM(P&IR/R)/527/2014/ 7104 dated 25.09.2014 has been kept in abeyance in order to exhaust the existing vacancies by making appointment on compassionate ground and by adjustment of existing manpower. If any vacancy still persists thereafter, the management may decide to proceed with a proper selection process. 9. The aforesaid reasonings, by no means, can be said to be arbitrary and whimsical. The grounds taken are logical and acceptable. As there are excess manpower in Central Coalfields Limited, they intend to adjust the excess manpower against the existing vacancies of Security Personnel otherwise such excess manpower had to be retrenched or if they are allowed to continue, there would be financial loss to the contrary. Further the ground that there are number of applicants for compassionate appointment for which they need the posts is also a justified ground to cancel the recruitment process. 10. The respondents have taken a plea that so far as other posts are concerned, Central Coalfields Limited had gone ahead to fill up the said posts. This argument does not find favour to the petitioners, as those posts of accountants etc. are technical posts where people with technical expertise needs to be appointed. 11. Since the petitioners do not have any vested right over the posts and they cannot claim appointment by way of right, decision of the respondents to cancel the recruitment process has to be weighed in the touchstone of reasonableness in the instant case. I find that the grounds and reasons given are justified and not arbitrary. Thus, I find no merits in these writ petitions. These writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.