JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. These Letters Patent Appeals are filed by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited challenging the oral judgment dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the aforesaid oral judgment, the learned Single Judge set aside the decision of the appellants dated 01.02.2022 by which they canceled the recruitment for certain posts in the Corporation. The learned Single Judge has further directed the Corporation to forthwith continue with the selection process from the stage it had been cancelled and issued directions that if the respondents who were the original petitioners, fulfill all the criteria, such respondents shall be granted appointment and be paid salaries for the respective posts from the date of filing of these petitions. 2. In paragraph no.14.4 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge while directing the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum for information has directed that action be initiated against the concerned officer for having indulged in taking a decision of cancellation of recruitment at the behest of the Union. 3. Facts in brief are as under: 3.1 The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, in the year 2019 issued advertisement no.01/2019 for various posts for the Western Sector, Gujarat State. Amongst the positions advertised for were that of Pharmacists Grade-4, Nurse Grade-4 and Junior Health Attendant. Pursuant to the advertisement, the respondents herein had applied for the respective posts. It is the case of the petitioners that the appellants after issuing a final merit list and after physical verification of the documents of the shortlisted candidates including the petitioners, the respondents herein, after three years of the issuance of the advertisement, cancelled the recruitment process for the said posts only. It is the case of the petitioners that after physical verification of the documents in January 2020, since the candidature of some of the respondents was rejected on the ground of not possessing domicile certificates, the aggrieved candidates had preferred Special Civil Application No.2054 of 2020 and allied petitions. By an order dated 27.02.2020, this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the domicile certificates as valid and further issued specific directions to the appellants to complete the recruitment process within 12 weeks from the date of passing of the order. By an order dated 27.02.2020, this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the domicile certificates as valid and further issued specific directions to the appellants to complete the recruitment process within 12 weeks from the date of passing of the order. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioners who are the respondents herein that the appellants started implementing the directions for other posts in the advertisement but differed the issuance of appointment orders concerning the present post in question. When RTI applications were filed, it was informed to the candidates that the process is still pending consideration. The appellants then preferred an application for extension of time and by an order dated 18.06.2021 time was granted to complete the exercise till 15.07.2021. Since the recruitment process was not completed, the respondent filed a Misc. Application seeking compliance of the directions. It was during the course of the application by the petitioners seeking compliance that the appellants filed a reply stating that the management had considered and decided to cancel the recruitment process for the posts in question. On a notification being issued on 01.02.2022, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the petitions challenging such cancellation of recruitment process on the ground that the notification cancelling the recruitment process was arbitrary. 3.3 Since LPA No.139 of 2024 was argued as the lead matter, in the petition from which this Letters Patent Appeal arises, the prayers read as under: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the notification/order dated 01.02.2022 issued by the respondent authorities cancelling the recruitment process for the post of Pharmacist and Junior Health Attendant and further direct the Respondent Authorities to proceed with the recruitment process for the post of Junior Health Attendant and Pharmacist forthwith.” 3.4 The learned Single Judge in light of these facts, held that the cancellation of the recruitment process is arbitrary and therefore the consequential prayers and directions followed. 4. Ms.Manisha Lavkumar learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Ruturaj Meena learned advocate has appeared in the appeals for the appellant. 4. Ms.Manisha Lavkumar learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Ruturaj Meena learned advocate has appeared in the appeals for the appellant. She made the following submissions: 4.1 She would submit that the learned Single Judge completely erred in the directions so issued, when the process of recruitment was canceled for absolutely just and bona-fide reasons. She would submit that it cannot be said that cancellation of the recruitment process was with any motive so as to brand it as arbitrary and mala-fide. Referring to the dates, she would submit that post the advertisement, a computer based selection process and a skill test was held in case of the respondents and a meeting was held thereafter. Referring to the minutes of the meeting produced together with the affidavit in reply, she would submit that reading of the minutes would indicate that it was decided to withhold the declaration of the results and the process of recruitment. 4.2 Ms.Shah would submit that the Corporation was a public entity and transparent in its approach. The whole file with regard to the recruitment was produced before the learned Single Judge and a photocopy of the minutes of the meeting was placed on record with the reply as there was nothing for the Corporation to hide from the Court. 4.3 Ms.Shah would submit that it is true that an advertisement was issued for induction of the workforce in non-core activities of the Corporation, however, due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Corporation was faced with various challenges and it necessitated abolition of certain posts. Inviting the Court’s attention to the minutes annexed to the affidavit in reply, Ms.Shah would submit that the decision to withhold the recruitment in the discipline was taken much prior to the filing of the Misc. Civil Application for compliance. She would submit that the decision to cancel the recruitment process was not taken in context of the Corporation’s office in Gujarat alone but was also taken for other work centers of Agartala and Assam. On the basis of an internal decision of the Corporation at the corporate level, she would submit that the cancellation of the recruitment was a policy decision taken by the Management for rationalizing the man power. On the basis of an internal decision of the Corporation at the corporate level, she would submit that the cancellation of the recruitment was a policy decision taken by the Management for rationalizing the man power. The management found it prudent to cancel the recruitment process in light of the minutes recorded by the Corporation which indicated that as a result of an outbreak in COVID pandemic which was followed by a challenging economic scenario, the corporation was constrained to revisit its business processes and adopt cost effective schemes and measures. It was found that oil production was undergoing slow process in light of the age of the oilfields, as a result of which, it was decided to review the non-core activities. She would submit that the pandemic had resulted in arising of a situation where the view was that there was discouraging crude price scenario coupled with reduced production from the majority of aged fields and therefore, the decision of the Corporation canceling the recruitment was just and proper. 4.4 Supporting her assertions, she would rely on several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of her submission that a candidate has no indefeasible right for appointment merely because name features in the select list. 4.5 Ms.Shah would submit that the notification of vacancy is merely an invitation to apply for a recruitment and that the State is entitled to withdraw the notification previously notified. The action of the corporation in not giving appointment cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She would submit that the contention on behalf of the respondents that non-appointment of the respondents despite being selected being arbitrary, is clearly erroneous. The respondents did not acquire any right by merely applying for selection or for appointment after selection. There is no question of any promissory estoppel against the Corporation. 4.6 In support of her submissions she would rely on the following decisions: (I) State of Manipur and Another v. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei and others reported in (2019) 3 SCC 331 (II) Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 (III) East Coast Railway and Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 . (IV) State of M.P. and others v. Ragahuveer Singh Yadav and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 151 . (IV) State of M.P. and others v. Ragahuveer Singh Yadav and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 151 . (V) The State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and others reported in (1974) SCC 220 (VI) Jatinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 122 (VII) State of Uttranchal and another v Sunilkumar Vaish and others reported in (2011) 8 SCC 670 . 5. Mr.Vikas Nair learned counsel appearing in the Letters Patent Appeal would support the order of the learned Single Judge. Taking us through the chronology of dates, he would submit that the advertisement was issued in the year 2019. The respondents who were the original petitioners had applied for various posts, they had cleared the computer based test and after due verification a merit-list was prepared. 5.1 In January 2020, when they were called for physical verification of documents, candidatures of the few of the respondents were rejected on the ground of not possessing domicile. That decision was challenged. That this Court in February 2020, directed that the recruitment process be completed within 12 weeks. The time was subsequently extended. Reading the minutes at page 209, Mr.Nair would submit that it is evident that the General Secretaries of certain unions raised concerns on the issue of contractual paramedics immediately thereafter. On 03.03.2020, the recruitment process was placed on hold. Except for the posts of Junior Attendant and Pharmacists, the entire recruitment exercise was carried forward. On an RTI application, the response that was received from the corporation was that the recruitment process has been withheld for administrative reasons. 5.2 The aggrieved respondents after the decision rendered by this Court in the domicile certificate matters, filed applications for compliance of the order, wherein, it was found that the stand was taken that for administrative reasons the process of recruitment has been cancelled. Through the minutes of meeting and dates’ sequence, he would submit that it was evident that the entire recruitment process was cancelled as the contractual paramedics would face termination and therefore the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in holding that the real reason for cancelling of the recruitment was they apprehended disgruntlement of the contractual employees whose terms would have been restricted in the event regular paramedics were appointed. The learned Single Judge therefore did not commit any error in cancellation of the recruitment process being termed as arbitrary. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the sequence of events that followed the issuance of the advertisements in the year 2019 when briefly recapitulated would show that; 6.1 The respondents pursuant to the advertisement had applied. They were called for a computer based test and after document verification, a list was prepared in accordance with the marks obtained in the computer based test. 6.2 In January, 2020, the respondents were called for physical verification of the documents, where the candidatures of some of the respondents were rejected on the ground of they not possessing a domicile certificate. Aggrieved candidates filed Special Civil Application No.2054 of 2020. In the aforesaid petition, the Court issued directions to complete the entire recruitment process within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The respondent-Corporation requested for extension of time and this Court by an order dated 18.06.2021 extended the time till 15.07.2021. The order granting such extension dated 18.06.2021 reads as under: “1. Application moved by the applicant original opponents seeking extension of time on the order dated 27.02.2020 for concluding the exercise directed by this Court in another three to five weeks. 2. Both the sides have been heard. 3. Mr. Meena submits the ONGC does not require time beyond 15.07.2021. 4. The other side since has no objection, request is acceded to. Let the same be completed without fail on the date of adjournment. 5. Application stands disposed of accordingly.” 6.3 The extension of time was granted in light of what transpired in the Court and was so recorded as is evident from the order preceding the order dated 18.06.2021 i.e. an order dated 22.01.2021. Para 3 of the same reads as under: “3. It is the say of the applicants-original respondents that there are other petitions pending before this Court, which have been detailed at Paragraph-6 of this application, which, according to the learned Advocate, Mr. Mehta, is causing difficulties in concluding the process. He, further, submits that because of Covid-19 pandemic, it was difficult to call all the candidates at a particular place and at a particular time. Mehta, is causing difficulties in concluding the process. He, further, submits that because of Covid-19 pandemic, it was difficult to call all the candidates at a particular place and at a particular time. He, further, submits that he has already advised the applicants to proceed with the conclusion of the recruitment process and there is likelihood of the same to be completed by the end of February, 2021. He, therefore, requests for the time of about four to six weeks, for the said purpose.” 6.4 Reading the submission made on behalf of the Corporation, it was clear that the Corporation was in the frame of mind to conclude the recruitment process by the end of February 2021. When the respondents made RTI application for knowing the reason for the delay in the process of recruitment, the respondents were informed via an RTI response which indicated as under: “To Mr.Bhimla Nayak, Sri Sai Durga Towers, Flat No-401, Opp SFS High School, Undrajavaram Road, Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh Pin-534211, Mobile No.9989962577 Registration Number ONGCL/R/E/21/01807. Dear Madam/Sir, I am to refer to your online RTI application (Registration No.ONGCI/R/E/21/01807] dated 25.10.2021 and to say that the reply as received from the office of Incharge - Medical Services, Ahmedabad, vide letter dated- 11.11.2021 is as under. SN Query Raised BY RTI Applicant Reply FROM ONGC 1 How many paramedics are engaged on contract basis in western sector assets include Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Mehsana, Ankleshwar, Hazira? 08 nos. of. paramedics are engaged Ahmedabad Asset. 2 When the latest extension of contract of paramedics has been done? Latest extension was done w.e.f. 01.07.2021 3 Is there any sudden increase or decrease in the manpower requirement of paramedics or the same number of paramedics contract has been renewed recently? In Ahmedabad Asset, no, of paramedics engaged is same as the last tenure. In case, you want to go for an appeal in connection with the information provided, you may appeal to the Appellate Authority indicated below within thirty days from the date of receipt of this letter. Shri Somesh Ranjan, ED Chief Head Skill Development Centre Deendayal Urja Bhavan, 5. Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Encl:- Reply.” 6.5 Reading the response would indicate that there were certain paramedics who were engaged on contract basis in the western sector assets of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Mehsana, Ankleshwar and Hazira. Their contractual appointments were extended with effect from 01.07.2021. Shri Somesh Ranjan, ED Chief Head Skill Development Centre Deendayal Urja Bhavan, 5. Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Encl:- Reply.” 6.5 Reading the response would indicate that there were certain paramedics who were engaged on contract basis in the western sector assets of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Mehsana, Ankleshwar and Hazira. Their contractual appointments were extended with effect from 01.07.2021. The entire controversy therefore has to be viewed in light of his response under the Right to Information Act. What is evident from reading the minutes which have been produced with the additional affidavit in reply is that a request was made by the General Secretaries of the recognized unions, in January 2020 to withhold the declaration of results of then ongoing process of recruitment of paramedics. The relevant portion of the correspondence through E-mail has been reproduced by the learned Single Judge in his judgment which is under challenge. Para 10.4 of the judgment which reproduces the relevant mail reads as under: “10.4. From the e-mails which are part of the file noting starting from one Mr.Rishi Kumar Dwivedi, Section HR Executive dated 13.10.2021 seeking instructions as regards taking a stand before this Court, it would appear that the justification as referred to herein above was arrived at more particularly to cancel the recruitment process for the posts in question and whereas, from the e-mail itself it would be apparent that while the ostensible decision was to refer to the pandemic situation yet, the real reason was the representation by the Recognized Unions to withhold declaration of results. Email sent by one Mr.Rajan Asthana, Group General Manager (HR) to one Mr.Aseemkumar Sinha dated 19.10.2021 making a very interesting reading is reproduced hereinbelow:- “Dear Sir, The trailing mail and the attachments pertain to filing a reply in the Hon'ble HC of Gujarat in MCA in SCA No. 2054 of 2020, wherein the applicants for the posts of Paramedics have represented against withholding of the recruitment exercise mid-way. As you are aware a decision was taken in January 2020, based on request of GSs of Recognized Unions to withhold declaration of the Result of the then on- going recruitment of the Paramedics. Subsequently with the outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic, followed by a challenging economic scenario, especially related to E&P Sector, Companies across the Globe were constrained to re-visit their business processes, adopt cost effective schemes and welfare measures. Subsequently with the outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic, followed by a challenging economic scenario, especially related to E&P Sector, Companies across the Globe were constrained to re-visit their business processes, adopt cost effective schemes and welfare measures. Accordingly, ONGC is also reviewing its duty patterns, working out locational agnostic shared services options, introducing enabling technology and re-working our manning mix. In view of a discouraging Crude price Scenario coupled with reduced production from majority of our aged fields, we shall have to review our non- core activities and hence it would be prudent to cancel the instant recruitment of the paramedics. This was also apprised to Director (HR). May also ofier your comments and if agreed, we may advise Vadodara HR to accordingly submit the reply to the MCA. The hearing is on 22.10.2021 hence the reply is to be submitted before the said date.” 6.6 Further the minutes dated 22.01.2020 reads as under: “Sub: Declaration of results of Paramedics under current Recruitment exercise at work centres Meetings were held with the Recognised Unions of ONGC from 20th to 22nd January, 2020 at New Delhi to discuss pending issues. During the course of discussions, the General Secretaries of Recognised Unions, raised some of the pending issues connected with contract paramedics, and requested for withholding the declaration of results of current recruitment exercise of Paramedics. May like to see. (S.K. Wadhwani) Chief ER” 6.7 Pursuant thereto on 03.03.2020, the CGN- HR addressed letters to the various competent authorities of withholding the ongoing recruitment process in paramedic discipline. The letter dated 03.03.2020 reads as under: “Sub: Withholding of ongoing recruitment process in paramedic disciplines. The undersigned is directed to convey that the recruitment in paramedic disciplines in the ongoing recruitment process started in 2018-19 be put on hold immediately till further orders. The recruitment process of remaining disciplines should continue as scheduled / planned. A confirmation in this regard may kindly be conveyed through return email. Regards, (Shashi Rajan) CGM (HR) – Head Corp. R&P” 6.8 In the background of these correspondences which are available on file, it is borne out that the stand taken by the respondents in the petition, informing the candidates that the recruitment has been withheld for ‘administrative reasons’ is therefore more than what meets the eye. It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce paragraph no.5 in the file notings which reads as under: “5. It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce paragraph no.5 in the file notings which reads as under: “5. Moreover, the use of term ‘administrative reasons’ in the modified cancellation notification/order (Annexure 17), keeping in mind the broader picture and for safeguarding interests of ONGC as the use of such a phrase would cover all the plausible grounds for cancellation of such recruitment process including but not limited to COVID induced pandemic etc. and which would facilitate ONGC’s Advocate in arguing the matter before the Hon’ble Court, as and when the need arises.” 6.9 The correspondence that ensued between the Corporation and its legal officer indicated that it was for the corporation to use the term ‘administrative reasons’ for cancellation of the recruitment notification so as to cover all plausible grounds for cancellation including but not limited to ‘Covid Induced Pandemic’ etc. so as to facilitate the ONGC’s advocate in arguing the matter before the Court as and when the need arises. It was therefore decided that in the impugned notification the only reason that should be mentioned is ‘administrative reasons’. 6.10 If all these circumstances are read, from the reproduction of the minutes which the learned Single Judge did and which we have reproduced herein above, the process is of withholding the declaration of the result obviously was triggered at the request of the general secretaries of the recognized unions to stop the recruitment of such regular candidates. This has to be viewed also in light of the fact that the contractual candidates’ terms were extended by various facets with effect from 01.07.2021. 6.11 Obviously therefore the Corporation would like to shroud its decision and dilute its stand by holding that there were other intervening factors such as outbreak of Covid and a scenario where there were discouraging crude prices coupled with reduced production from the majority of the aged fields, however, the real intent that writs large over the purpose of cancellation of the recruitment process was that of the pressure of the contractual employees. Though the High Court of Tripura had dismissed the petition and the order of the learned Single Judge was modified and it was pressed into service by the respondents, it is of no assistance. Though the High Court of Tripura had dismissed the petition and the order of the learned Single Judge was modified and it was pressed into service by the respondents, it is of no assistance. 6.12 There can be no dispute to the proposition set out by the learned Senior Advocate for the Corporation by citing the decisions in the context of indefeasible right of a candidate who is otherwise found selected but, as is evident from the text of the decision of the learned Single Judge who relied on the very same decision in the case of Shankarsan Dash (supra), wherein it is held that when it is found that the process of recruitment has been cancelled not for bona-fide reasons, the Court definitely can step in. 6.13 It was in light of these facts that the learned Single Judge having raised the issues in para 8 of the decision, answered the same in the subsequent paragraphs, which read as under: “8. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, following question arise for the consideration of this Court:- i. Whether the proposition that a candidate even if his name figures in the select list is not entitled to claim appointment, is an absolute principle? ii. Whether the decision of the respondents of canceling the recruitment process is in accordance with law or arbitrary? 9. It would be apposite to, before giving my own answer, refer to decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on this issue. 9.1. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) has observed thus at paragraph no.7:- “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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 9.2. The law has been very succinctly explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court inasmuch as while laying down the principle that a successful candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed, yet, the Hon’ble Apex Court had also clearly set- out the principle that the above referred proposition would be subject to the State not acting arbitrarily. Furthermore, decision not to fill up vacancies have to meet with the scrutiny on the ground of being bona fide and for appropriate reasons. 9.3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Takhelmayum Kheledro Meitei (supra) had an occasion to refer to decision of Shankarsan Dash (supra) and whereas relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph no.11 are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:- “11. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, it was held that there is no indefeasible right for appointment merely because a candidate is found fit on the basis of a selection. Ordinary the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment. 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 was also held in the said judgment that the State does not have any licence to act in an arbitrary manner and that the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. The High Court observed that there is no bona fide reason for the successor entities of the Electricity Department for not appointing the respondents. The High Court observed that there is no bona fide reason for the successor entities of the Electricity Department for not appointing the respondents. Further, the High Court concluded that it was not the stand of the appellant that the process of recruitment has been scrapped.” 9.4. From a plain observation, it would be clear that while recognizing that the candidate would not get an indefeasible right for appointment based upon selection, it was further observed that the State cannot act in an arbitrary manner and whereas the decision has to be taken bona fidely. 9.5. In case of East Coast Railway and Another vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had inter alia observed thus at paragraph no.14, more particularly again explaining the observations of the Apex Court in case of Shankarsan Dash (supra):- “14. 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.” 9.6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while reiterating the law had further explained that the State’s decision not to appoint is subject to judicial review before a writ Court and if the decision is found arbitrary, appropriate directions could be issued. 9.7. Thus, the principle that would emerge from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) explained in later decision that while the State could legitimately deny appointment to a selected candidate, who does not acquire any right on the basis of such selection. 9.7. Thus, the principle that would emerge from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) explained in later decision that while the State could legitimately deny appointment to a selected candidate, who does not acquire any right on the basis of such selection. Yet, on the other hand, decision of the State should be bona fide and based on appropriate reasons and whereas, if the decision is arbitrary and malafide for reasons which are not appropriate then, it would be open for the writ Court to issue appropriate directions in a challenge to the non-appointment. Thus, the submission that a candidate does not acquire any indefeasible right merely on account of his name figuring in the select list, it not an absolute proposition. In matters of all public employment, the State and its Instrumentalities cannot be seen to be acting arbitrarily and whereas, in case a decision not to appoint a candidate/candidates whose name figure in the select list or in a like situation where the State decides to do away with the selection process, if the decision appears to be arbitrary or for non-bona fide reasons, the writ Court would be entitled to pass appropriate directions. 10. Having appreciated the issue from its legal perspective, we will now proceed to examine the issue on its facts to understand whether the decision by the respondent ONGC was either arbitrary or was bona fide and for appropriate reasons. 10.1. It would appear that after the advertisement, the selection process had continued in right earnest up to the stage of document verification insofar as the present posts in question are concerned. It would appear that while there had been some erroneous stand taken by the ONGC more particularly having regard to bona fide certificates, it would also appear that at the relevant point of time, the Unions had approached the respondent raising some issues connected with contract paramedics and requested for withholding declaration of result of current recruitment exercise for paramedics. The same is evident from a file noting dated 22.01.2020 originating from the Chief (ER) which had been acknowledged by the Chief (HRD) and the Head (R&P). It appears that based upon such request, on 03.03.2020, the CGM-Head (CORP.R&P) had intimated to the concerned officers that recruitment in paramedic disciplines be put on hold till further orders. The same is evident from a file noting dated 22.01.2020 originating from the Chief (ER) which had been acknowledged by the Chief (HRD) and the Head (R&P). It appears that based upon such request, on 03.03.2020, the CGM-Head (CORP.R&P) had intimated to the concerned officers that recruitment in paramedic disciplines be put on hold till further orders. Thus, it clearly appears that at the first instance, the decision to keep the recruitment process on hold had been taken upon the representation received by Recognized Union. 10.2. While the communications reveal representation on account of some pending issue, whereas it does not require any mention here that the reason was very obvious i.e. to ensure that paramedics on contract basis were not disturbed more particularly the said contractual paramedics would be required to make way if the recruitment process for paramedics had reached its logical conclusion. 10.3. It appears that while the position i.e. of keeping the recruitment process on hold continued, the petitioners had approached this Court by preferring Misc. Civil Application (for direction) in the writ petition which they had preferred questioning decision taken by the respondents as regards the domicile certificate. It appears that a question had arisen as to the stand which was to be taken before this Court and whereas, from the file noting it appears that a justification was found out to cancel the recruitment of paramedics. The justification being that on account of the pandemic situation, there had been a drop in crude prices resulting in the ONGC requiring to review their non-core activities. 6.14 It was in light of these facts, the learned Single Judge, and in our opinion, rightly so, held that it was a clear case that when the recruitment process was near completion, the unions espousing the cause of persons working on the posts in question when made a request for keeping the recruitment process on hold, the Corporation readily obliged. Para 11.1 of the decision of the learned Single Judge reads as under: “11.1. It clearly appears that while the recruitment process was near in completion, the Unions espousing the cause of persons working on the posts in question albeit on contractual basis, had requested for keeping the recruitment process on hold. Para 11.1 of the decision of the learned Single Judge reads as under: “11.1. It clearly appears that while the recruitment process was near in completion, the Unions espousing the cause of persons working on the posts in question albeit on contractual basis, had requested for keeping the recruitment process on hold. The respondents, without taking into consideration the fact that the request of the contractual employees for regularization having been rejected by this Court, had readily obliged and kept the recruitment for the posts in abeyance. It further appears that when the petitioners had sought to question the same by preferring an MCA (for direction) before this Court, it was decided to cancel the entire recruitment for the posts in question and to provide justification for the same. The justifications having been elaborately mentioned by this Court hereinabove i.e. of relying upon the pandemic situation which had resulted in discouraging crude prices to review the non- core activities of the ONGC. The decision on the part of the respondents does not to state the least behove a State Entity like the ONGC more particularly when the entire exercise was done to justify their action before this Court and to cover-up the original decision of giving in to the representations of the Unions.” 6.15 It was in light of this that the learned Single Judge issued the directions as set out in paragraph no.14 and its sub-paragraphs which read as under: “14. In view of the above discussion, analysis and conclusions, the following directions are passed:- 14.1. The impugned decision of the respondents dated 01.02.2022 of cancellation of recruitment for paramedical posts is hereby quashed and set aside. 14.2. The respondents are directed to forthwith continue with the selection process from the stage it had been kept in abeyance and later cancelled. 14.3. The petitioners, if they fulfill all the criteria, shall be granted appointment in the respective posts and while the appointment of the petitioners shall be in the order of merit as determined by the respondents, yet, considering that the petitioners have been denied appointment on account of the arbitrary action of the respondents, the respondents shall pay to the petitioners salary of the respective posts with effect from the date of filing of the petitions. 14.4. 14.4. A copy of the present judgment be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum for information and initiating action against the concerned officers for having indulged in taking such a decision at the behest of the Unions, which decision as referred to hereinabove, is against all settled standards and norms.” 6.16 Having agreed with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the cancellation of recruitment was in fact propogated to be for ‘administrative reasons’ it was just a facade to oblige the contractual employees, we do not find any fault in the judgment of the learned Single Judge insofar as directions given in paragraph no.14.2 is concerned which directs the corporation to continue the selection process from the stage it had been kept in abeyance and later cancelled. 6.17 As far as the directions issued in para 14.3 of the order which directs that if the concerned respondents herein fulfill all the criteria, the direction of granting them appointments to the respective posts and pay them salaries with effect from the date of filing the petitions is an issue which requires modification. While confirming the direction that the Corporation should continue the process of selection from the stage it had been kept in abeyance, we are of the opinion that the appellant-Corporation can be directed to consider the case of appointments if they otherwise fulfill the criteria. A positive direction of granting appointments and payment of salaries with effect from the date of filing of the petition is a direction which cannot be sustained. 6.18 Vis-a-vis directions at para 14.4 of the order of the learned Single Judge, we note that while admitting the petition, the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 13.02.2024 in para 7 of the order observed as under: “7. In the facts and circumstances of the case therefore, the interim relief is granted. (i) The directions as regarding initiation of action against the ofiicers concerned shall remained stayed, which shall be subject to the further orders which may be finally passed by the court. In the facts and circumstances of the case therefore, the interim relief is granted. (i) The directions as regarding initiation of action against the ofiicers concerned shall remained stayed, which shall be subject to the further orders which may be finally passed by the court. (ii) The directions given to pay to the petitioners salary for the respective posts with effect from the date of filing of petition, is also stayed and the respondent- Corporation shall not be obliged to implement the same, for, the right to appointment of the petitioners is yet to be fructified, the direction to pay the salary could not have been given. (iii) No further relief could be granted to the appellants. Any further directions to stay the impugned judgment and order will amount to granting the principle relief in the appeals.” 6.19 Interim relief was granted as quoted hereinabove. We also therefore are not in a position with due respect to sustain the directions given in para 14.4 of the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Accordingly, while upholding the directions given in para 14.2 with certain modifications of the directions in para 14.3, the appeals of the Corporation are partly allowed modifying the directions of the learned Single Judge as aforesaid. Orders accordingly.