JUDGMENT : SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. 1. An advertisement was published on 06.11.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement to the post of Gram Rozgar Sevak on contractual basis in different Gram Panchayats of Gajapati district under MGNREGS. The total number of posts was ‘60’. Pursuant to such advertisement, the Petitioners submitted their applications and after scrutiny thereof by the Selection Committee, were found to have been selected for appointment to the said post. A draft select list was published by Opposite Party No. 3. However, the Collector-cum-C.E.O. Zilla Parishad, Gajapati (Opposite Party No. 3) issued letter dated 04.10.2019 indicating the names of ‘44’ eligible candidates for their selection and engagement as Gram Rozgar Sevak and invited objections. While the matter stood thus, suddenly vide office order dated 06.06.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) of the Opp. Party No. 3, the advertisement dated 06.11.2018 was cancelled due to unavoidable reasons and by stating that further advertisement shall be published in near future. A fresh advertisement was published on 18.06.2020 for engagement of ‘74’ posts of Gram Rozgar Sevak. Challenging the cancellation of the earlier advertisement dated 06.11.2018, the Petitioners, all of whom are selected candidates have approached this Court seeking the following relief: “It is therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI to the opposite parties and, if the opposite parties will fail to show cause or shown insufficient cause made the said Rule absolute by directing the opposite parties to engage the petitioners as per the selection list under Annexure-3 and further quash the letter dated 06.06.2020 under Annexure-4 and may further be pleased to pass any other appropriate order or orders or direction or directions for the ends of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3 and 6. It is basically contended in the counter affidavit that after publication of the advertisement dated 6.11.2018, the Government in P.R. and D.W. Department issued a clarification vide letter dated 29.06.2019 followed by another letter dated 6.8.2019 providing “comprehensive guidelines” for selection and engagement of Gram Rozgar Sevaks. Accordingly, a draft list of ‘2935’ applicants was duly published by the Screening Committee and web-hosted in the district website inviting objections. Accordingly, a draft list of ‘2935’ applicants was duly published by the Screening Committee and web-hosted in the district website inviting objections. It is further stated that in the advertisement dated 6.11.2018, the Authority had reserved a right to reject or accept any or all applicants without any reason and that all terms and conditions are subject to change as per the guidelines issued by the government from time to time. It is further stated that the authority had to cancel the advertisement as natural justice of genuine applicants had been violated and that they had sufficient reasons to cancel the same and it is not intentional. It is also given out that as after publication of the re-scrutiny draft list published vide letter dated 4.10.2019, some candidates of previous panel list were not coming into the zone of clarification as per the latest guidelines of government, the earlier advertisement was cancelled. It is, thus, stated that due to receipt of allegation of the Petitioners and public agitation with regard to re-scrutiny process, the panel merit list was not finalized, for which, Opposite Party No. 3 decided that the entire advertisement of Gram Rozgar Sevak should be withdrawn as per the impugned order for giving natural justice to the Applicants and therefore issued a fresh advertisement. 3. Heard Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Sukumar Ghosh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No. 6. 4. It is argued by Ms. Mahapatra that the Petitioners possessed the requisite qualification as per the advertisement and were also duly selected by the Selection Committee. Further, upon issuance of clarification from the Government vide letter dated 29.06.2019 and 06.08.2019, there was re-scrutiny of the applications by the Screening Committee appointed by the Collector. The applicants were also found to be eligible for appointment after such re-scrutiny. However, Opposite Party No. 3, without citing any reason whatsoever unilaterally cancelled the advertisement thereby frustrating the legitimate expectations of the Petitioners as also the other selected candidates for being appointed. It is also contended by Ms. Mahapatra that such action of the Collector, Gajapati is entirely arbitrary and unjust. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sukumar Ghosh, learned Additional Standing Counsel has argued that mere selection does not confer a vested right on a candidate for appointment. It is also contended by Ms. Mahapatra that such action of the Collector, Gajapati is entirely arbitrary and unjust. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sukumar Ghosh, learned Additional Standing Counsel has argued that mere selection does not confer a vested right on a candidate for appointment. It is further contended that it is always open to the employer to cancel a particular selection for valid reason. In the instant case, complaints had been received with regard to erroneous selection of candidates and therefore with a view to do complete justice to all the intending candidates, the Opposite Party No. 3 rightly cancelled the advertisement and issued a fresh advertisement. Mr. Ghosh also states that it is still open to the Petitioners to apply in pursuance of the latest advertisement. 6. The facts averred in the writ petition are not disputed, inasmuch as, an advertisement was issued on 06.11.2018 wherein amongst other things, the selection process was indicated as below: “SELECTION PROCESS: Multi Purpose Assistant (Gram Rozgar Sevak): A selection committee constitute by the Collector and District Magistrate, Gajapati shall scrutinize and select the eligible candidate for Multi Purpose Assistant (GRS). The selection of candidates shall be strictly on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2. Marks secured in the fourth optional shall not be included.” 7. It is undisputed that the selection committee scrutinized the applications and a draft selection list was published which includes the name of the present Petitioners. It appears that the government in Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department issued two clarifications, one vide letter dated 29.06.2016 and the other vide letter dated 06.08.2019. Subsequently, there was rescrutiny of the applications by the Screening Committee appointed by the Collector comprising of BDO, Paralakhemundi, DIO, Gajapati, DWO, Gajapati, DIO, NIC, Gajapati and Addl. Project Director (Admn.) DRDA and Project Director, DRDA, Gajapati. Such re-scrutiny was conducted especially in view of the clarification received from the government vide letter dated 29.06.2019 and 06.08.2019. In the process ‘44’ applicants were found to be eligible for appointment as per the list incorporated in the proceeding of the Screening Committee wherein names of all the ‘7’ Petitioners found place, as has already stated hereinabove. Such re-scrutiny was conducted especially in view of the clarification received from the government vide letter dated 29.06.2019 and 06.08.2019. In the process ‘44’ applicants were found to be eligible for appointment as per the list incorporated in the proceeding of the Screening Committee wherein names of all the ‘7’ Petitioners found place, as has already stated hereinabove. A stand has been taken by the Opposite Party that the earlier advertisement was cancelled as it was found that some of the candidates were not eligible as per the qualification issued by the Government and certain objections had been raised with regard to the same. In the impugned order dated 06.06.2000, however, it is simply stated that the advertisement was cancelled “due to unavoidable circumstances.” It was incumbent upon the Opposite Parties to have explained as to what constituted the so-called unavoidable circumstances warranting cancellation of the entire advertisement. It has also been argued that mere inclusion in the selection list does not confer any vested right on a candidate for appointment. There can be no quarrel with the above proposition. But fact remains that such a stand could have been taken by the Government had the advertisement has been cancelled on a valid ground. In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, it was held that the action of the Government should be fair, just and reasonable. In other words, arbitrariness has no place in public employment. While one may concede, though only for the sake of argument that mere inclusion of name in the select list does not confer a vested right for appointment but it cannot also be denied that being included in the selection list originally as also after re-scrutiny, gives the person concerned a legitimate expectation for employment. In this respect, the following observations made by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 are noteworthy: “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.” 8. Further, in the case of East Coast Railway and Another vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 678 , the Supreme Court held as follows: “Though a candidate who has passed an examination or whose name appears in the select list does not have an indefeasible right to be appointed, yet appointment cannot be denied arbitrarily, nor can the select test be cancelled without giving proper justification. Further, Court can give appropriate directions where a decision is found to be arbitrary.” As regards the concept of ‘legitimate expectation’ the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrakala Trivedi vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 129 held as follows: “However, after a person is provisionally selected, a certain degree of reasonable (or legitimate) expectation of selection comes into existence.” In the case of R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 230, the Supreme Court held as follows: “Even though a person on select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected, he has a right to be considered for appointment. At the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make appointment on its whims.” 9. If the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties is considered objectively, it would appear that the Government has not really taken a legally acceptable stand to justify its action of cancelling the advertisement as would be evident from the following extracted portions thereof: “5. xxx xxx xxx That, in the meantime, the Govt. If the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties is considered objectively, it would appear that the Government has not really taken a legally acceptable stand to justify its action of cancelling the advertisement as would be evident from the following extracted portions thereof: “5. xxx xxx xxx That, in the meantime, the Govt. in PR&DW Department, Orissa communicated clarification vide letter No. 10839/PR dated 29.06.2016 and letter No. 13339/PR dated 06.08.2019 pertaining to “Comprehensive Guidelines” for Selection and Engagement of GRS issued earlier vide letter No. 6681, dated 06.04.2018. In order to carry out the instructions by the Govt. in PR&DW Department communicated vide letter dtd.29.06.2019 and 06.08.2019 regarding qualification of the candidates and in order to maintain transparency with regard to qualification of Computer Proficiency of the candidates applying for the post of GRS, the Draft list of 2935 applications was duly published by the Screening Committee and web-hosted in the District Website for inviting objection if any. That, it has been clearly mentioned in the advertisement published vide letter No. 3371/DRDA, dated 06.11.2018 that, the authority reserves all rights to reject or accept any or all applications without any reason thereto and all terms and conditions are subject to change as per guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. Accordingly, the authority inclined to cancel the advertisement for the natural justice of genuine applicants. The appointing authorities have sufficient reasons to cancel the advertisement which is not intentional. 7. xxx xxx xxx (ii) After publication of re-scrutinize Draft list for the post of GRS published vide DRDA letter No. 3892 dated 04.10.2019, some candidates of previous panel list filed objection petition claiming to engage them in the post of GRS. As the candidates of previous panel list not coming under the zone of qualification as per the latest guidelines of Govt., the earlier advertisement was cancelled. The present petitioners have been found in the draft publication list prepared by the Screening Committee. As the panel merit lists of the candidates had not been finalized the authority thus cancelled the advertisement to carry out the latest guidelines of Govt. issued from time to time. 8. xxx xxx xxx That, the final merit list was not made on 04.10.2019 by the Section Committee. As the panel merit lists of the candidates had not been finalized the authority thus cancelled the advertisement to carry out the latest guidelines of Govt. issued from time to time. 8. xxx xxx xxx That, the final merit list was not made on 04.10.2019 by the Section Committee. On receipt of the complaint petition and agitation of some applicants, the OP No. 3 has inclined to cancel the process of GRS selection and to issue fresh advertisement as per instant guidelines of Govt. and to make the GRS selection in transparent manner, this does not amount to any ulterior motive. 9. That in reply to the averments made in Paragraph-6 of the Writ Application, it is humbly submitted that as per the eligibility criteria and clarification prescribed in the guidelines of Govt. PR&DW Department vide letter No. 10839/PR, dated 29.06.2019 and vide No. 13339, dated 06.08.2019, regarding qualification of GRS. Some applicants have filed complain petition and made agitation concerning engagement of GRS. Hence, the authority has cancelled the entire selection process with a view to make fresh advertisement of GRS in fair and transparent manner. xxx xxx xxx As discussed vide Para supra, the authority, i.e. Respondent No. 3 has to carry out the orders passed by Govt. and this does not amount to mala-fide. 12. xxx xxx xxx It is a fact that, after re-scrutiny the Screening Committee has recommended for engaging the persons from the list of 2935 nos. of application through district website/Notice Board of all the Blocks/District Office Notice Board for wide circulation and inviting objections from the candidates in writing maintaining more transparency of the selection process of GRS. In the meanwhile, some aspirants lodged complaint petitions before the authority regarding modification of qualification candidature of candidate without mentioning in the advertisement. Due to receipt of allegation petition and public agitation with regard to re-scrutiny process, the panel merit list was not finalized for which the Opposite Party No. 3 has decided to cancel the entire advertisement of GRS vide Order No. 4449/DRDA, dated 06.06.2020 for giving natural justice to the applicants and hence, invited fresh advertisement.” 10. A bare reading of aforequoted portions of the counter would make it more than obvious that the stand taken by the Opposite Party-Authorities in their counter is vague and nonspecific and therefore, cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. That apart, the Govt. A bare reading of aforequoted portions of the counter would make it more than obvious that the stand taken by the Opposite Party-Authorities in their counter is vague and nonspecific and therefore, cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. That apart, the Govt. guidelines vide letters dated 29.06.2019 and 06.08.2019 having already been taken into account for re-scrutiny of the selection lists, cannot be treated as a ground to cancel the advertisement. Similarly, who had submitted complaints and what was the nature of the so-called public agitation has also not been clarified at all. Even otherwise, it is significant to note that such stand was never taken in the impugned order which, as stated earlier, speaks of ‘unavoidable circumstances” and therefore, could not have been improved subsequently as has been attempted to be done by the opposite parties in the instant case. Such a course of action runs contrary to the well-known legal principles. Therefore, the opposite parties are precluded from supplementing or supplanting any other reasons, bereft of reasons available in the order impugned, by way of filing counter affidavit. The following observations of the apex court in the case Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 are noteworthy: “Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” Similar view was reiterated by the apex court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851 , wherein it was observed as follows: “.........when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow old.” 11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the action of the Opposite Party No. 3 in cancelling the original advertisement without citing valid and justifiable reasons has to be treated as arbitrary and unconscionable in the eye of law. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-4 is hereby quashed. The Opposite Party-Authorities are directed to take into consideration the selection list prepared on 04.10.2019 while making necessary appointments for the posts advertised originally. It goes without saying that the subsequent advertisement issued vide Annexure-5 dated 18.06.2020 may be acted upon only after completion of the recruitment process relating to the original advertisement dated 06.11.2018.