Bibek Chaudhuri, J. – The Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: – (i) For a direction upon the respondents to produce letter no. No. 01/estb.(Public Grievance)-01/2021 3321, dated 09.11.2021 and quash the same, whereby and whereunder the respondents have cancelled the whole employment and appointment process on the post of City Manager undertaken vide Advt. No. UD&H/CTM-2020/01, dated 24th of April, 2020, for which merit list has already been issued and counseling has already been done hence, cancelling the whole employment and appointment process is arbitrary and without any valid reason, which is not permissible under the law. (ii) For quashing of the notice dated 12.11.2021 issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, whereby it has been informed that it has cancelled the whole employment / appointment process undertaken through Advt. No. UD&H/CTM-2020/01, dated 24th of April, 2020, vide its letter No. 01/estb.(Public Grievance)-01/2021 3321, dated 09.11.2021. (iii) For a direction upon the respondents to conclude the employment and selection process with respect to the aforesaid advertisement for the post of City Manager without any further delay and to issue letter of appointment in favour of selected candidates without any further delay. (iv) For any other relief / reliefs, this Hon'ble Court may find fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar issued Advertisement No. UD&H/CTM-2020/01, dated 24th of April, 2020 in accordance with a Resolution, contained in letter dated 12th December, 2019, for selection to the vacant posts of City Managers on contract basis under the Urban Development and Housing Department. It was stated in the said advertisement that online Computer Based Test (CBT) would be held for appointment to the vacant posts of City Manager under the Department and the responsibility of conducting the examination was handed over to the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board. The aforesaid advertisement declared 163 posts of City Managers to be appointed on contractual basis on a consolidated scale of pay of Rs. 40,000/-. The Petitioners submitted their candidature with examination fee of Rs. 2,200/- in addition to the pay processing charges etc. The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board issued Admit-Cards to the candidates, including the Petitioners. The aforesaid advertisement declared 163 posts of City Managers to be appointed on contractual basis on a consolidated scale of pay of Rs. 40,000/-. The Petitioners submitted their candidature with examination fee of Rs. 2,200/- in addition to the pay processing charges etc. The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board issued Admit-Cards to the candidates, including the Petitioners. Online Computer Bases Test (CBT) was held on 9th of December, 2020. Subsequently, a merit-list was prepared by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board and the same was uploaded on the website of the Board on 25th of January, 2021. The Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar also issued a notice, informing all the candidates with respect to the publication of merit-list by the Board. The names of the Petitioners were figured in the merit-list. The Department fixed 9th of February, 2021 to 11th of February, 2021 for verification of the documents. However, on that date, some selected candidates were absent. Therefore, the Department gave them another opportunity to appear for verification of documents in between 2nd of March, 2021 to 3rd of March, 2021 by issuing a notice dated 24th of February, 2021. Accordingly, the documents of all the Petitioners were verified. Thereafter, the Department remained absolutely silent regarding the said appointment which compelled some of the Petitioners to approach the Department with respect to delay in issuing the appointment letters to the successful candidates but no positive response was availed from the Department. Some of the Petitioners also met the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar and different other authorities and submitted their representations but the Respondents did not act by handing over the appointment letter to the successful candidates as per the advertisement. Suddenly, on 12th of November, 2021, the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar cancelled the whole employment/appointment process undertaken by the Board without assigning any reason. Some Petitioners filed application under the Right to Information Act to know the reason as to why recruitment process was cancelled but they did not get any reply. It is alleged by the Petitioners that the specific act of the Urban Development and Housing Department is illegal and manifestly arbitrary. They cannot cancel the entire recruitment process without assigning any valid reason. 3. Hence, the instant Writ Petition. 4. It is alleged by the Petitioners that the specific act of the Urban Development and Housing Department is illegal and manifestly arbitrary. They cannot cancel the entire recruitment process without assigning any valid reason. 3. Hence, the instant Writ Petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, duly sworn by the Project Officer-cum-Deputy Director of the said Department. It is the specific case on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 that the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar issued a new policy regarding the process and guidelines for the contractual appointment vide Resolution, contained in Memo No. No. 3/M-78/2005 GAD-1003, dated 22nd of January, 2021, in which the Government was pleased to direct that no contractual appointment shall be made normally against regular post. Paragraph 4(1)(i) of the said guidelines issued by the General Administration Department contains that on account of delay of selection process for making regular appointment through BPSC or other Commission, no contractual appointment against regular sanctioned post will normally be made. The contractual engagement against the said post will be made in extraordinary situation only after the approval of the proposal of contractual engagement by the State Cabinet. In the light of the aforesaid policy of the Government of Bihar regarding contractual appointment, the Urban Development and Housing Department was not in a position to fill up the 163 posts of City Managers under the said Department on contract. Therefore, the Department had no other alternative but to cancel the said examination process undertaken by Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board. 5. Petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit, alleging, inter alia, that examination of the Petitioners was held on the basis of an advertisement dated 24th of April, 2020. Therefore, the policy decision contained in Memo No. 3/M-78/2005 GAD-1003, dated 22nd of January, 2021 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar is not applicable in the case of the Petitioners. It is also contended by the Petitioners that even after publication of the aforesaid policy decision, dated 22nd of January, 2021, various Departments under the Government of Bihar issued different advertisements for different posts for appointment on contract basis. It is also contended by the Petitioners that even after publication of the aforesaid policy decision, dated 22nd of January, 2021, various Departments under the Government of Bihar issued different advertisements for different posts for appointment on contract basis. As for example, the State Health Society, Government of Bihar issued Advertisement dated 30th of June, 2021 for appointment on Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery on contract basis and the process of selection is going on. Patna Metropolitan Area Authority under the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar issued an advertisement dated 18th of August, 2021 for appointment of Junior Staff (Surveyor / Amin) on contract basis. The Sales Tax Department issued advertisement dated 18th of January, 2022 for appointment to the post of Rajya Kar Upper Ayukta on contract basis. Similarly, the Women and Child Development Corporation, Government of Bihar; Bihar State Mining Corporation, Government of Bihar; Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar; and other Departments also issued advertisements for contractual appointment on different posts under their respective Departments. Therefore, it is contended by the Petitioners that the Government of Bihar in different Departments did not give effect to the Resolution dated 22nd of January, 2021 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners that advertisement was published for the posts of City Managers under the Urban Development and Housing Department to fill up 163 posts on contract basis in the month of April, 2020. On the basis of the said advertisement and subsequent notification, the Petitioners appeared in the competitive examination conducted by Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board. They were selected on the basis of merit. Therefore, the Petitioners had the legitimate expectation of being appointed albeit on contract under the State Government. After the examination, the concerned Board published the result. Thereafter, the Department examined the documents of the Petitioners. Then the process of recruitment cannot be stopped on the basis of a subsequent notification which cannot be applied retrospectively. 7. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 that in case of appointment, candidates included in merit-list has no indefeasible right to appoint even if a vacancy exists. 7. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 that in case of appointment, candidates included in merit-list has no indefeasible right to appoint even if a vacancy exists. But the State while filling up the vacancies has to act bona-fide and not arbitrarily. 8. In P. Mohanan Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 497 , it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that rule of appointment which were prevailing at the time of advertisement or when the vacancies arose would be adhered to. 9. In the instant case, vacancies were declared on the basis of an advertisement dated 24th of April, 2020. By a subsequent decision taken in the month of January, 2021, the Petitioners’ right of appointment cannot be cancelled. The candidates listed in the panel has a right to be appointed. This principle is laid down in a recent decision of this Court in Binod Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2024 (2) PLJR 296 . 10. The learned Advocate for the Respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Urban Development and Housing Department cancelled the selection process of the Petitioners for contractual appointment because of the policy decision taken by the General Administration Department, before issuance of appointment letter to the candidates. The General Administration Department directed all the Departments in the Government that no contractual appointment would normally be made against the substantive vacancy and if under any special ground such appointment is required to be made on contract basis, ratification of the State Cabinet is absolutely necessary. 11. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on careful perusal of the instant writ petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder and other materials on record along with relevant judgements as referred to above by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, it is recorded at the outset that the law on this issue is no longer res integra that while authorities have the right to cancel a selection process, this right must be exercised for valid reasons and cannot be arbitrary. The lack of any justification for the cancellation led to the Court to conclude that the decision was arbitrary and thus set aside. 12. The lack of any justification for the cancellation led to the Court to conclude that the decision was arbitrary and thus set aside. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelima Shangla vs. State of Hariyana & Ors., reported in (1986) 4 SCC 268 , first laid down the principle that pursuant to the completion of the process of selection, it would be open to the Government not to fill up all the vacancies for a valid reason. 13. In Shankarsan Dash (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment, the successful candidates do not acquire indefeasible right to be appointed but the decision not to fill up the vacancies had to be taken up bona-fide for appropriate reasons. In paragraph no. 7 of the said judgement, it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as hereunder: – “7. …… 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.” 14. The State Government can cancel a selection process on the ground that the less meritorious candidates were virtually on the top of the list on the basis of the marks obtained in Interview and the members of the Selection Board has made use of Interview marks awarded by them at Interview to eliminate meritorious candidates. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh & Ors., reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 . 15. In East Coast Railway & Anr. vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized need to record prima facie satisfaction before proceeding of order of cancellation of a selection process. 15. In East Coast Railway & Anr. vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized need to record prima facie satisfaction before proceeding of order of cancellation of a selection process. This was a case of selection process to the post of Chief-Typist and it was alleged that to some of the unsuccessful candidates, defective type writing machines were provided which had placed them at a disadvantage as against the candidates who were declared successful. 16. In the instant case, no such allegation has been levelled against the State authorities. On the contrary, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cancelled the entire selection process on the ground that the General Administration Department issued a notification on 22nd of January, 2021 that normally no vacant sanctioned posts should be filled up by contractual appointment. The process of appointment was started on and from 24th of April, 2020. Examination was taken on 9th of December, 2020 and the merit-list was published on 25th of January, 2021. It is an established principle of law that any Circular with regard to appointment or selection etc. will have prospective effect. The process of selection initiated before publication of such Circular or policy decision cannot be circumscribed by the subsequent Circular. The decision of this Court in the case of Allahabad Bank & Ors. vs. Prashant Chandra Jha & Ors., reported in 2015 (4) PLJR 708 is a reference on this point. 17. In view of the above discussion, I find that the advertisement for selection to the post of 163 numbers of City Managers was published prior to publication of policy decision of the General Administration Department, dated 21st of January, 2021. Examination was taken prior to the said policy decision. Result was published only 3 days after 22nd of January, 2021. The State Government and especially the Respondents failed to show any valid or cogent reason for cancellation of such selection process. 18. In view of such circumstances, the prayer made by the Petitioners is allowed. 19. The order of cancelling the selection process to 163 posts of City Managers under the Urban Development Housing Department vide letter No. 01/estb.(Public Grievance)- 01/2021 3321, dated 09.11.2021 and notice, dated 12.11.2021 be quashed and set aside. 20. The Respondent Nos. 18. In view of such circumstances, the prayer made by the Petitioners is allowed. 19. The order of cancelling the selection process to 163 posts of City Managers under the Urban Development Housing Department vide letter No. 01/estb.(Public Grievance)- 01/2021 3321, dated 09.11.2021 and notice, dated 12.11.2021 be quashed and set aside. 20. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to conclude the process of selection and appointment to the post of 163 City Managers on contractual basis within six weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. 21. The instant writ petition, thus, allowed, on contest. 22. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.