JUDGMENT : 1. This intra-court appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment dated 09.07.2019 of the learned single judge [“the writ court”] passed in SWP 2528/2018, whereby the writ court has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant [“writ petitioner”]. Brief Facts 2. Vide advertisement notification No. 04 of 2015, dated 10.07.2015, the respondent Institute [“the SKIMS”] invited applications for various faculty positions, which included the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Clinical Biochemistry, from the candidates possessing the prescribed qualification. The respondent institute received as many as 16 applications, which included the application of the petitioner also. 3. The screening committee constituted by the government found the petitioner along with other candidates provisionally eligible for the post. The candidates found provisionally eligible including the writ petitioner were called in to appear before the Apical Selection Committee on 21st August, 2017. 4. While this process was on, one candidate namely Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Gatoo, filed a writ petition, SWP1512/2017, in this court. This court vide its interim order dated 3rd August, 2017 directed the respondents not to conduct the interview for the post of Assistant Professor, Clinical Biochemistry, till further orders from the court. 5. By way of a subsequent interim order dated 21st August, 2017, this court directed that the petitioner Dr.Manzoor Ahmad Gatoo, shall also be admitted to the interview and the selection process shall be concluded. There was, however, a restraint put on the declaration of result of selection until further orders from the court. 6. The Apical Selection Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, government of Jammu and Kashmir, and assisted by technical experts of the respective faculty, interviewed all the eligible candidates including the petitioner. The recommendations of the Apical Selection Committee were processed for the approval of the competent authority. However, the government constituted a Scrutinizing Committee comprising of eminent officers of the respondent institute to scrutinize the selection in question and submit its report/recommendations. This committee was constituted by the government vide government order No. 64-SKIMS 2018, dated 28th July, 2018. 7. The Scrutinizing Committee after scrutinizing the selections in the department of Clinical Biochemistry, made its recommendations as under: Compilation of marks Observations Report/recommendations An error was noticed in the compilation of marks from the individual score sheets into the cumulative sheet and master sheet. 7. The Scrutinizing Committee after scrutinizing the selections in the department of Clinical Biochemistry, made its recommendations as under: Compilation of marks Observations Report/recommendations An error was noticed in the compilation of marks from the individual score sheets into the cumulative sheet and master sheet. This placed some candidate in the select list where he/she should not have been. Accordingly, needs to be placed before ASC for further necessary action. The Committee observed that Dr. Manzoor Gatoo was ineligible. However, the court had directed that he should be interviewed and court order was complied. In view of the court directions, there commendations of the ASC shall be kept on hold. SKIMS will take advice from the legal counsel to contest on its merits. 8. Meanwhile, the SWP 1512/2017 filed by Prof. Manzoor Ahmad Gatoo came to be disposed of in terms of judgment dated 2nd August, 2021. The operative portion of the judgment passed in SWP 1512/2017 reads asunder: “The petition of the petitioner is allowed and, by a 'Writ of Certiorari', the impugned communication dated 1st of November, 2016 is hereby quashed. The respondents, by a 'Writ of Mandamus', are directed to take the selection process in question to its logical conclusion by considering all the eligible candidates, including the petitioner, in tune with the merit position obtained by the said candidates”. 9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the observations and recommendations made by the Scrutinizing Committee constituted vide government order dated 28th July, 2018 were placed before the Chief Secretary, government of Jammu and Kashmir, who is also ex-officio chairman of the Apical Selection Committee of the SKIMS. The Chief Secretary after going through the report of the Scrutinizing Committee made the following remarks: “Only Award Rolls Drawn. Minutes not finalized in view of reports of skewed marking. Recommendations of the Sub-Committee endorsed and selection to be kept on hold. Process for fresh selection to be on hold. Process for fresh selection to be initiated on the ground that ratio in appointment is to be maintained as per 2013 rules (i.e. 50% Medical and 50% Non-Medical candidates). In the instant case, the three candidates recommended for selection by ASC are from Non-Medical background. Further, we need to analyse the scenario of recruitment made from 2013 onwards to ensure equal representation to the two streams (Medical and Non-Medical)”. 10. In the instant case, the three candidates recommended for selection by ASC are from Non-Medical background. Further, we need to analyse the scenario of recruitment made from 2013 onwards to ensure equal representation to the two streams (Medical and Non-Medical)”. 10. It thus appears that pursuant to the remarks made by the Chief Secretary to government of Jammu and Kashmir/Chairman, Apical Selection Committee, the entire selection process was examined and it was concluded by the respondents that the selection process was not carried out in accordance with rules and, therefore, a decision was taken to rescind the selection process and issue a fresh advertisement notification. 11. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner apprehending that the selection process may not be taken to its logical end and could be withdrawn, filed the instant petition seeking inter alia a direction to the respondents to issue select list and make consequent appointments to the post of Assistant Professor of Clinical Biochemistry notified by the respondents vide their notification No. 07 of 2016, dated 5th September, 2016. 12. The writ petition came up for consideration before the writ court on 9th July, 2019, when learned counsel appearing for the respondents made a statement that for violations of the mandate as provided in the Recruitment Rules of 2013, the process of selection has been abandoned and a process for fresh selection is initiated, the writ court dismissed the writ petition. The writ petition has been primarily dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus for seeking declaration of his result in a selection process which has been withdrawn. It is this judgment of the writ court which is impugned in this writ petition. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE 13. The impugned judgment of the writ court is assailed by the appellant inter alia on the following grounds: i) That the withdrawal of selection process by the respondents on the ground that the process was being carried out in violation of Recruitment Rules of 2013 is totally illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ii) That the respondents have been delaying the selection process on one pretext or another, in that, respondents have issued three notifications for making selection to the post in question and have not taken the selection process to its logical end. ii) That the respondents have been delaying the selection process on one pretext or another, in that, respondents have issued three notifications for making selection to the post in question and have not taken the selection process to its logical end. iii) That in view of the directions passed by the Single Bench of this court while disposing of SWP No.1512/2017 filed by Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Gatoo, it was not open for the respondents to withdraw the selection process, which this court had directed to be taken to its logical conclusion by considering all the eligible candidates including the petitioner in tune with merit position obtained by the said candidates. ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS A. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record, we are of the considered view that the judgment passed by the writ court and the view taken therein, is perfectly legal and unexceptionable. It is true that the petitioner being eligible in terms of advertisement notification and having participated in the selection process, had legitimate expectation that the selection process would be taken to logical end, more so, when in terms of judgment dated 2nd August, 2021 passed in SWP 1512/2017, there was categorical direction to the respondents to take the selection process to its logical conclusion. But, it is equally true that taking the selection process to logical conclusion would include withdrawal of the selection process as well, provided such with drawal is not mala fide, arbitrary or for ulterior considerations. Such a decision of the selection body is to be tested on the touchstone of 'Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness' and must not fall foul of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. B. It is trite law that a candidate in the select list does not have an indefeasible right to be appointed and the employer for good and justifiable reasons may refuse to appoint such candidate. However, the courts cannot lose sight of the fact that there is solemn obligation on the State to act fairly. It is thus beyond any pale of discussion that a candidate who is on the select list has no indefeasible right to get appointed and can be deprived of it. The court shall not interfere unless the action is mala fide or arbitrary. It is thus beyond any pale of discussion that a candidate who is on the select list has no indefeasible right to get appointed and can be deprived of it. The court shall not interfere unless the action is mala fide or arbitrary. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shandarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR1991 SC 1612 while dealing with somewhat similar situation observed as under: “. . . 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”. C. When we view the case set up by the writ petitioner in the context of the legal position enumerated hereinabove, we find that the decision of the respondents to withdraw the selection process and issue fresh advertisement notice is not mala fide, arbitrary or for ulterior considerations, as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Indisputably, the government had entertained doubts with regard to the manner in which the selection process was being conducted and consequently vide government order No. 64-SKIMS of 2018, dated 28th July, 2018, a Scrutinizing Committee was constituted which was headed by Dr. M.S. Khuru, former Director and Dean SKIMS. He was assisted by two other Professors and an Additional Director SKIMS. The committee after scrutinizing the selection record observed mainly two illegalities/irregularities in the selection, which we have already adverted to in this judgment in the tabular form hereinabove. D. The committee found that there was an error committed by the selection committee in the process of compilation of the marks from the individual score sheets into the cumulative sheet and mastersheet. It further found that because of the aforesaid error some candidate was placed in the select list where he/she should not have been. There was also observation made by Scrutinizing Committee that though there was direction by the High Court to interview Dr Manzoor Ahmad Gatoo but he was ineligible. It further found that because of the aforesaid error some candidate was placed in the select list where he/she should not have been. There was also observation made by Scrutinizing Committee that though there was direction by the High Court to interview Dr Manzoor Ahmad Gatoo but he was ineligible. E. The chairman while analyzing the recommendations of the Scrutinizing Committee further found that the selection committee had also not maintained the ratio of 50% Medical and 50% non-Medical, which was mandated by the recruitment rules of 2013, in that, in the selection process in question, all the three candidates recommended for selection were from non-medical background. F. The Chairman, Apical Selection Committee was also of the opinion that there was need to analyse the scenario of selection to ensure equal representation to the two streams (Medical and Non-Medical). G. In view of the aforesaid facts emerging from the record, the selection if permitted to be taken to the logical end, would be a stillborn selection exposed to challenge by the non-selected candidates onnumerous grounds. We are thus of the view that in the given facts and circumstances, the respondents took a right decision. Instead of going ahead with the selection, it was thought proper to rescind the ongoing selection process because of inherent defects in it, and initiate a fresh one. H. The decision of the respondents cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be termed as mala fide, arbitrary or for ulterior considerations. The selection process has not been cancelled only for the petitioner but for all the candidates who had participated, more particularly those who had made it to the proposed select list. It is not the case of the petitioner that he alone has been chosen for any discriminatory treatment or is being treated in isolation by the respondents unfairly and arbitrarily. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the conduct of the respondents in issuing three advertisement notifications in a row, is demonstrative of the fact that the respondents right from the beginning had not been acting fairly and the only effort was to somehow dislodge the petitioner on one pretext or the other, does not hold any substance. Reply of the respondents is quite clear on this aspect as well. Reply of the respondents is quite clear on this aspect as well. It is submitted that the earlier advertisement notifications were never withdrawn, rather the posts were only re-notified vide Notification No. 07 of 2016, dated 5th September, 2016 keeping the previous applications received from the incumbents intact. There was thus no willful attempt on the part of the respondents to take away any of the rights of the writ petitioner. I. While it is true that the writ court has not dealt with all these issues, and rightly so, as the only issue before the writ court was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner had made out a case for issuance of a direction to the respondents to declare the results of selection and issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner. The writ court after being informed that the selection process had been abandoned and decision to initiate fresh process had been taken by the respondents, was left with no option but to dismiss the writ petition. The court also found that the respondents had cancelled the ongoing selection process on the ground that the same was being carried out in violation of Recruitment Rules of 2013. 14. Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing analysis we find no merit in this appeal, and the same is dismissed along with all connected IAs.