ORDER : NIRZAR S. DESAI, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Preeti Dixit for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Darshan Parikh for the respondent Bank. 2. It was stated by learned advocate Ms. Dixit that both the petitions are filed by two different petitioners; however, the facts involved in both the petitions are identical and the prayers made therein are also identical. Therefore, Special Civil Application No. 4402 of 2025 was treated as the lead matter. Accordingly, the facts and prayers are being referred to from the said petition. 2.2. By way of Special Civil Application No. 4402 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the nature of writ, declaring the action on the part of respondent authorities not offering him employment after completion of due process as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to settled legal position. (B) Be pleased to direct respondent authorities to forthwith issue an appointment order to the Post of Sweeper w.e.f 15-04-2019 alongwith arrears and interest @ 12% p.a. with all consequential benefit. (C). Be pleased to allow this petition with costs and be pleased to quantify the cost in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. (D) Be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. The facts, as stated by learned advocate Ms. Dixit for the petitioners, are as under; 3.1 According to the petitioners, they had worked for more than 90 days between the years 1988 and 2013. It is their case that the erstwhile Vijaya Bank, at the relevant point of time in the year 2013–14, published an advertisement for appointment to the post of part-time Sweeper. As per the said advertisement, only those persons who had rendered service for more than 90 days between 1988 and 2013 were declared eligible to participate in the recruitment process. The petitioners applied for the said post; however, they were not successful in the selection process at the relevant point of time. 3.2. The matter ended there for the time being. Thereafter, in the year 2019, a fresh recruitment process was initiated and an advertisement came to be issued. The petitioners applied for the said post; however, they were not successful in the selection process at the relevant point of time. 3.2. The matter ended there for the time being. Thereafter, in the year 2019, a fresh recruitment process was initiated and an advertisement came to be issued. The petitioners again applied for the said post and, after completion of the due selection process, their names were included in the select list. An appointment letter dated 28.03.2019 was also issued in favour of the petitioners. However, the petitioners were not permitted to join service. After a period of nearly six years, the present petitions have been preferred in the year 2025, challenging the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not appointing the petitioners. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Preeti Dixit for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners had participated in the entire selection process and were duly selected, the respondent authorities ought not to have cancelled the recruitment process. It was contended that the petitioners could not have been denied appointment without any justifiable reason. She further submitted that, upon completion of the due process of selection and issuance of appointment letters, a right had created in favour of the petitioners to be appointed. Therefore, the action of the respondents in denying appointment is contrary to the provisions of law and therefore, the same may not be approved by this Court. She, accordingly, urged that this Court may direct the respondent Bank to appoint the petitioners, who had successfully cleared the recruitment process. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Darshan Parikh appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the facts stated in the petition and the submissions made by the petitioner are as stated; however, the subsequent development has not been disclosed in the petition and, therefore, the Bank has filed an affidavit wherein it has categorically stated that after the recruitment process was undertaken, the Bank passed Resolution No. 26 dated 25th April 2019, i.e., after the appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner. The resolution reads as under; “After noting the above it was: RESOLVED that approval be and is hereby given for cancellation of exercise for recruitment of Peons and Part Time Sweepers in the erstwhile Vijaya Bank (EVB), as detailed in the Agenda Note.” 5.1. The resolution reads as under; “After noting the above it was: RESOLVED that approval be and is hereby given for cancellation of exercise for recruitment of Peons and Part Time Sweepers in the erstwhile Vijaya Bank (EVB), as detailed in the Agenda Note.” 5.1. In view of the aforesaid resolution, the Bank decided to cancel the recruitment process for the posts of Peons and Part- Time Sweepers in the erstwhile Vijaya Bank. It was submitted that during the interregnum period, Vijaya Bank had merged with Bank of Baroda and, thereafter, Bank of Baroda had taken over. Subsequent to the passing of Resolution No. 26 dated 25th April 2019, the Bank also issued a public notice dated 21st June 2019 informing the public at large about the cancellation of the selection process. 5.2. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh also submitted that merely because the petitioners were selected and appointment order was issued, no vested right was created in their favour, in view of the fact that immediately thereafter, by way of the aforesaid Resolution No. 26 dated 25th April 2019, the entire recruitment process was cancelled and, therefore, not only the petitioners but no other selected candidates were permitted to join, and thus no right can be said to have accrued in favour of the petitioners. It is well settled that even if a person finds his name in the select list, whether to appoint such person or not is a matter of discretion vested with the employer. In the present case, when the entire selection process has been cancelled, the petitioner cannot claim appointment as a matter of right in view of the resolution passed by the Bank. 5.3. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh further pointed out that the aforesaid action had taken place in April 2019, whereas the present petition has been filed in the year 2025, which indicates that the petitioner has approached this Court after a period of about six years, and such delay has not been sufficiently explained by the petitioners. Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches as well, the present petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5.4. In support of his contentions, learned advocate Mr. Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches as well, the present petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5.4. In support of his contentions, learned advocate Mr. Parikh for the respondent Bank has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha and Others, reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL SC 74866, and in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1612 . 6. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. 7. On perusal of the record, I find that though an appointment letter was issued to the petitioners in the year 2019, they were not permitted to join by the Bank. It is an undisputed fact that the entire recruitment process was cancelled by the Bank vide Resolution No. 26 dated 25th April 2019 and, therefore, once the Bank cancelled the entire recruitment process undertaken by the erstwhile Vijaya Bank, it cannot be said that the petitioners were singled out or were not allowed to join on account of any mala fides, extraneous considerations, or arbitrariness. Further, it is also noted that the recruitment was cancelled vide Resolution No. 26 dated 25th April 2019, whereas the petitions have been affirmed only on 6th March 2025, i.e., after a delay of nearly six years, for which, except for a representation dated 1st January 2024 made by the petitioners, no satisfactory explanation is coming from the pleadings. 7.1. Further, learned advocate Mr.Parikh for the respondent Bank has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha (supra). In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that mere inclusion of a candidate’s name in the select list does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment. The employer is not under a legal obligation to fill up all or any of the advertised vacancies, provided the decision not to proceed with the appointment is bona fide and not arbitrary. The Court further held that cancellation of an entire recruitment process would not warrant interference in judicial review unless the decision is shown to be mala fide, irrational, or disproportionate. 7.2. The Court further held that cancellation of an entire recruitment process would not warrant interference in judicial review unless the decision is shown to be mala fide, irrational, or disproportionate. 7.2. Learned advocate for the respondent has further relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (supra). In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held that mere inclusion of a candidate’s name in the select list does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment, even if vacancies exist. The State is under no legal obligation to fill up all the advertised vacancies unless the recruitment rules mandate otherwise. It has further been held that the decision not to fill up vacancies is permissible, provided it is taken bona fide and is not arbitrary or discriminatory. 8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, and considering that the respondents have cancelled the entire recruitment process, it is well settled that whether to appoint a person or not is a matter within the discretion of the employer, which is required to be exercised reasonably. In the present case, there is no material on record to indicate that the respondents have misused the discretion vested in them. Once the entire recruitment process has been cancelled and no other candidate has been appointed, no vested right can be said to have accrued in favour of the petitioners. In the absence of any material to suggest that the cancellation of the recruitment process was done by mala fides, arbitrariness, or any oblique motive, such action on the part of the respondents cannot be termed as unreasonable or illegal. Accordingly, the present petitions deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.