As per case facts, employees of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited participated in an internal recruitment process (ENN 06/2024), which followed previous cancelled recruitment drives. After the Computer Based ...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16590 of 2025
======================================================
1.Puja Kumari Wife of Ajay Kumar, resident of Chitragupt Colony,
Bikramganj, Police Station-Bikramganj in the district of Rohtas.
2.Pinki Kumari, Daughter of Hirdaya Kumar Singh, resident of Village-
Govindpur, Police Station-Harsiddhi in the district of East Champaran.
3.Madhu Kumari, Daughter of Kandhjee Prasad, resident of House No. 65,
Bajrang Bihar Colony, Ashiana, Patna, Police Station- Rajiv Nagar in the
district of Patna.
4.Priya Kumari, Daughter of Akhilesh Kumar, resident of Sanjay Market, Fida
Hussan More, Jehanabad, Police Station- Jehanabad in the district of
Jehanabad.
5.Khushbu Kumari, Daughter of Ramji Pandit, resident of Village-
Kayamganj, Police Station-Makhdumpur in the district of Jehanabad.
6.Rashmi Priya Verma, Wife of Randhir Kumar Singh, resident of Village-
Kishanpur, Police Station-Sarai Ranjan in the district of Samastipur.
7.Girja Kumar, Son of Kamlesh Sharma, resident of Village- Mussi, Police
Station- Makhdumpur in the district of Jehanabad.
8.Vivek Raj, Son of Late Ramphal Singh, resident of Village- Beri, Police
Station- Pouthu in the district of Aurangabad.
9.Sintu Kumar, Son of Raj Kumar Paswan, resident of Village- Saidpur, Police
Station- Ghosi in the district of Jehanabad.
10.Indiwar Thakur, Son of Nagendra Thakur, resident of Village- Sundarpur,
Police Station- University in the district of Darbhanga.
11.Sachin Kumar, Son of Ram Dhyan Ram, resident of Quarter No.4, Board
Colony, Shastri Nagar, Patna, Police Station- Shastri Nagar in the district of
Patna.
12.Md. Imdad Baksh, Son of Md. Elahi Baksh, resident of House No. 112,
Board Colony, Shastri Nagar, Patna, Police Station- Shastri Nagar in the
district of Patna.
13.Prem Sagar Gupta, Son of Bengali Prasad Gupta, resident of Village-
Fazeliganj, Police Station- Tarapur in the district of Munger.
14.Vivek Narayan, Son of Mohan Prasad, resident of Village- Diha, Police
Station- Tharthari in the district of Nalanda.
15.Amarnath Bhandari, Son of Chandeshwar Bhandari, resident of Village-
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
2/40
Pachadhi, Police Station-Pandaul in the district of Madhubani.
16.Krishna Kant Kumar, Son of Sudhir Prasad Singh, resident of Village
Ekarha, Police Station-Chewara in the district of Sheikhpura.
17.Ravi Shankar Chaudhary, Son of Bihari Chaudhary, resident of Village-
Bhagwanpur, Police Station-Bhagwanpur in the district of Kaimur.
18.Md. Ziyaur Rahman, Son of Md. Mujeebur Rahman, resident of Village-
Mohanpur, Police Station-Bibhutipur in the district of Samastipur.
19.Intekhab Hussain, Son of Md. Nizamuddin Ansari, resident of Village-
Bheria, Dalmianagar, Police Station- Dalmianagar in the district of Rohtas.
20.Nishant Kumar, Son of Sunil Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Puran Tand,
Police Station- Lalganj in the district of Vaishali.
21.Ranjeet Kumar, Son of Late Ram Sewak Mahto, resident of Jay Prakash
Lane, Machhali Gali, Phulwarisharif, Police Station- Phulwarisharif in the
district of Patna.
22.Pawan Singh Rathour, Son of Pramod Kumar Singh, resident of Village-
Devhaliya, Police Station-Ramgarh in the district of Kaimur.
23.Ranjeet Kumar, Son of Lalan Sah, resident of Village- Kalyanpur Harauna,
Police Station- Motipur in the district of Muzaffarpur.
24.Deepak Kumar, Son of Birendra Kumar, resident of Village- Rasalpur,
Police Station- Chakand in the district of Gaya.
25.Bimmi Kumari, Daughter of Arvind Kumar, resident of A-103, Sanjana
Shashwatam Apartment, Ara Garden Road, Baily Road, Patna, Police
Station- Shastri Nagar in the district of Patna.
26.Aayushi Anand, Daughter of Shyamanand Sah, resident of 403, Aprajita
Apartment, Khajpura, Police Station- Shastri Nagar in the district of Patna.
27.Shahin Kaushar, Wife of Md. Sajjad Ansari, resident of Village- Baghakol,
Police Station- Bihta in the district of Patna.
28.Kumari Rimjhim, Daugther of Awadh Bihari Singh, resident of South Indira
Nagar, Road No.6, Postal Park, Police Station- Jakkanpur in the district of
Patna.
29.Niraj Kumar, Son of Krishna Chaudhary, resident of Village Manjhauli,
Police Station-Phulwarisharif in the district of Patna.
30.Ranjeet Kumar Ram, Son of Bajrangi Ram, resident of Village- Dharhara,
Vaishali, Police Station-Sarai in the district of Vaishali.
31.Rakesh Kumar, Son of Sukhdev Ram, resident of Village- Sarbahda, Police
Station- Sarbahda in the district of Gaya.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
3/40
32.Rohit Raj, Son of Harendra Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Ubani Nagar, Tehta,
Police Station- Tehta in the district of Jehanabad.
33.Abhishek Kumar, Son of Bhadai Singh, resident of Village- Dudhpura,
Police Station- Samastipur in the district of Samastipur.
34.Nitish Kumar, Son of Harendra Prasad, resident of Village- Nonaura, Police
Station- Ghorasahan in the district of East Champaran.
35.Rajeev Kumar, Son of Kameshwar Singh, resident of Village- Khalispur
Tola Devrath, Police Station-Kako in the district of Jehanabad.
36.Bhagat Singh, Son of Ashok Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Teghra
Barain, Police Station- Babu Barhi in the district of Madhubani.
37.Dewendra Kumar, Son of Ram Akwal Paswan, resident of Village- Kadma,
Police Station-Kadma in the district of East Champaran.
38.Kartik Kumar, Son of Late Digamber Singh, resident of Village-
Salonachak, Police Station-Lakhisarai in the district of Lakhisarai.
39.Abhishek Kumar Ranjan, Son of Pravesh Kumar, resident of West Jay
Prakash Nagar, Phulwarisharif, Police Station- Phulwarisharif in the district
of Patna.
40.Himanshu Shekhar, Son of Nand Kishor Prasad, resident of Village- Sablak
Sarai, Police Station- Kurtha in the district of Arwal.
41.Sudhanshu Kumar, Son of Ram Baran Prasad Rai, resident of Village-
Rajawan, Police Station-Tharthari in the district of Nalanda.
42.Ravi Shankar Prasad, Son of Bhola Prasad Singh, resident of Village-
Maheshi, Ward No.6, Police Station-Mehsi in the district of Samastipur.
43.Upendra Kumar, Son of Binay Kumar Chaudhari, resident of Mohalla-
Alampur Gonpura, Police Station- Phulwarisharif in the district of Patna.
44.Ravi Shankar Kumar, Son of Bhagya Narayan Mahto, resident of Village
Matiar Kalan, Police Station- Sitamarhi in the district of Sitamarhi.
45.Pankaj Kumar Singh, Son of Ramchandra Singh, resident of Mohalla-
Anandpuri near Govind Palace, Harmu, Police Station Harmu in the district
of Ranchi (Jharkhand).
46.Bipin Kumar, Son of Vijay Kumar, resident of Pathri Ghat, Lal Babu Ki
Gali, Tirpolia, Police Station-Alamganj in the district of Patna.
47.Rahul Kumar, Son of Suresh Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Sultanpur,
Police Station- Sadar in the district of Vaishali.
48.Guddu Kumar, Son of Kedar Nath, resident of Mohalla- Khajurbanna,
Sultanganj, Police Station-Sultanganj in the district of Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
4/40
49.Vikash Vaibhav, Son of Shatrudhan Prasad Gupta, resident of near Sanjivani
Hospital, East of B.M.P.-6, Police Station- Mushari in the district of
Muzaffarpur.
50.Vikash Kumar, Son of Rajdeo Singh, resident of Village- Amarpur, Police
Station- Amarpur in the district of Begulsarai.
51.Sumit Raj, Son of Tarakant Das, resident of Village- Dherukh, Police
Station- Benipur in the district of Darbhanga.
52.Rajeev Kumar, Son of Shyamlal Ojha, resident of Mohalla- Kurthoul Pakari,
Anishabad, Police Station-Gardanibagh in the district of Patna.
53.Praduman Kumar, Son of Kameshwar Prasad, resident of Quarter No. 410,
Market Lane, BTPS Colony, Malhipur, Police Station- Barauni in the district
of Begusarai.
54.Dharmendra Kumar, Son of Krishna Prasad, resident of Village- Bhadsara,
Police Station- Dulhin Bazar in the district of Patna.
55.Prem Kumar, Son of Kallu Chaudhary, resident of Subhav Tola, Sadishopur,
Police Station-Kadamkuan in the district of Patna.
56.Satish Kumar, Son of Ashok Kumar, resident of Mohalla- Matkhan, Sipara,
Police Station- Jakkanpur in the district of Patna.
57.Ashirbad Kumar Shailendra Prasad, Son of Shailendra Prasad, resident of
Village- Dariyapur, Police Station- Giryak in the district of Nalanda.
58.Satish Kumar, Son of Baijnath Rai, resident of Village- Aganager, Police
Station- Maniyari in the district of Muzaffarpur.
59.Vikash Ranjan, Son of Sarvan Yadav, resident of Shakuntala Utsav Hall near
Bus Stand, Karbigahiya, Police Station- Jakkanpur in the district of Patna.
60.Sandeep Kumar, Son of Ramakant Thakur, resident of Village- Sakri, Police
Station- Arwal in the district of Arwal.
61.Rajeev Ranjan, Son of Dhananjay Prasad, resident of Village- Bajitpur,
Police Station- Dhanarua in the district of Patna.
62.Shekhar Suman, Son of Nageshwar Singh, resident of Rajapur, Mainpura,
Police Station- Patliputra in the district of Patna.
63.Prashant Anand, Son of Chandradeo Singh, resident of Village-
Bishambharpur, Police Station-Bihta in the district of Patna.
64.Yashwant Ram, Son of Suryadeo Ram, resident of Village- Mahuain, Police
Station- Madanpur in the district of Aurangabad.
65.Shashi Bhushan Kumar Das, Son of Nathuni Das, resident of Village-
Singrahia, Police Station- Sahiyara in the district of Sitamarhi.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
5/40
66.Sappu Verma, Son of Deosharan Verma, resident of Grid Colony, Ram
Dayalu Nagar, Police Station-Sadar in the district of Muzaffarpur.
67.Anil Kumar, Son of Gorelal Chaudhary, resident of Village- Simri, Police
Station- Simri in the district of Saharsa.
68.Basant Chaudhary, Son of Arjun Chaudhary, resident of Village- Adhgawa,
Police Station- Meskour in the district of Nawada.
69.Ranjit Kumar, Son of Rajendra Rajak, resident of Mohalla- Hanuman Nagar,
Police Statation- Patrakar Nagar in the district of Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.The Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited, Patna through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 1st Floor, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road,
Patna.
2.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power (Holding)
Company Limited, 1st Floor, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3.The Managing Director-cum-Examination Controller, South Bihar Power
Distribution Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road,
Patna.
4.The General Manager (HR and Adm.), Bihar State Power (Holding)
Company Limited, 1st Floor, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5.The General Manager (HR and Adm.), North Bihar Power Distribution
Company Limited-cum-Chairman of Selection Committee 06/24 (Internal),
5th Floor, Vidyut Bhawan-2, Bailey Road, Patna.
6.The Deputy Secretary, Appointment Cell, Bihar State Power (Holding)
Company Limited, 1st Floor, Bailey Road, Patna.
7.South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., Bidyut Bhawan, Baily Road,
Patna through its Managing Director (SBPDCL).
8.North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., Bidyut Bhawan, Baily Road,
Patna through its Managing Director (NBPDCL).
9.Bihar State Power Transmission Company Ltd., through its Managing
Director (BSPTCL).
10.Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd., through its Managing Director
(BSPGCL).
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
6/40
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s: Mr. P. N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
C.A.V JUDGMENT
Date : 15-06-2026
Heard Mr. P. N. Shahi, Learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Advocate for the
petitioners, and Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the State through virtual mode, assisted
by Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the
following reliefs:-
“1. To quash the office order
contained in Memo No. 727 dated 23.9.2025
issued under the signature of respondent no.4
i.e. the G.M. (HR/ADM.), BSPHCL by which
Employment Notice No. 06 of 2024 has been
cancelled without assigning any reason.
II. Also to quash the Notice
contained in Memo No. 712 dated 11.9.2025
issued under the signature of respondent no.4
by which process of document verification-
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
7/40
cum-joining for recruitment to various posts
against Employment Notice No. 06 of 2024 is
going to be held on 12.9.2025 was postponed.
III. Also to quash the order
contained in Memo No. 728 dated 23.9.2025
issued under the signature of respondent no.4
by which a Committee for formulation of
regulation for process of Internal appointment
in pursuance to the Resolution No. 125-05.02
was constituted.
IV. Also to direct the respondents
to appoint the petitioners against the
vacant/sanctioned post in pursuance to the
Employment Notice No. 06 of 2024 as the
petitioners were declared successful in CBT
(Computer Based Test) held on 02.06.2025 and
03.06.2025 and the result of CBT was declared
on 04.09.2025 contained in Memo No. 707
dated 04.09.2025.
V. Also to restrain the respondents
from issuance any fresh Internal Advertisement
for appointment against the post/vacancy
published in Employment Notice No. 06 of
2024.
VI. Also to restrain the
respondents from publishing the result of
External Examination under ENN-03/2024,
ENN-04/2024 and ENN-05/2024 and if final
result be published then direct the respondents
to prioritize Internal candidates in seniority,
whose scheduled Document Verification-cum-
joining was abruptly postponed without
appropriate reasons and cancelled thereafter
vide office order 1444 dated 23.9.2025 without
specifying any reasons, considering that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
8/40
internal recruitment has been pending since
January, 2022 whereas external recruitment
commenced from March, 2024.
VII. Also to direct the respondents
to prioritize the Internal candidates selected
under ENN-06/2024 in seniority over newly
recruited candidates selected under ENN-
01/2024 and ENN-02/2024, whose recruitment
procedure is almost complete, since Internal
recruitment has been pending since January,
2022, while external recruitment commenced
from March, 2024.
VIII. Also to constitute a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) to ascertain the
reasons behind the deliberate and repeated
cancellations of various employment notices,
started from ENN-01/2022, ENN-03/2022 and
ENN-06 of 2024 and to fix accountability of
the officers/employees involved therein.
IX. Also for any other relief/reliefs
for which the petitioners are found to be
entitled in the eye of law.”
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits
that the brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are
employees of the Respondent-Company who participated in the
Internal Recruitment Process under Employment Notice No.
ENN-06/2024 pursuant to a policy consciously framed and
approved by the competent authority. He submits that Bihar
State Power (Holding) Company Limited (BSPHCL) conducts
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
9/40
internal recruitment centrally for itself and its subsidiary
companies by inviting applications from regular serving
employees fulfilling prescribed eligibility conditions including
minimum length of service and requisite educational
qualifications. Such recruitment is confined to in-service
employees belonging to workmen categories and is not an open
market recruitment process. It is further submitted that the said
framework is consistent with the long-standing practice
prevailing since the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board
(BSEB), under which internal recruitment has historically
operated as a recognized channel of career progression for Class
III and IV employees, as reflected from BSPHCL Memo No.
328 dated 08.04.2022 and erstwhile BSEB Memo No. 541 dated
13.08.2005.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that since
the year 2022, BSPHCL issued three successive internal
recruitment notifications, namely ENN-01/2022, ENN-03/2022
and ENN-06/2024. It is further contended that each successive
notification proceeded one stage further than the previous cycle,
but every recruitment process was ultimately abandoned,
postponed or cancelled after employees had already participated
therein, thereby revealing a recurring pattern of uncertainty,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
10/40
shifting standards and administrative arbitrariness.
5. It is further submitted that under ENN-01/2022,
applications were invited from eligible employees and an
application fee of Rs.1,000/- was collected from each candidate.
However, after receipt of applications and fees, the recruitment
process was abruptly cancelled citing “unavoidable reasons”.
Thereafter, ENN-03/2022 was issued with adjustment of the
earlier application fee. It is further submitted that under ENN-
03/2022, BSPHCL successfully conducted the Computer Based
Test (CBT), but after nearly two years the entire recruitment
process including the CBT was cancelled on 06.03.2024 again
citing “unavoidable reasons”. On the same date, ENN-06/2024
was issued under an amended internal recruitment policy
approved in the 104
th
Board Meeting. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that although refund of the application fee was assured,
the same has not been refunded till date.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in the
104
th
Meeting of the Board of Directors, a conscious policy
decision was taken to regulate internal recruitment by
prescribing separate qualifying marks for technical and non-
technical posts and by adopting a seniority-cum-merit
methodology for preparation of the final select list. It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
11/40
submitted that the Respondents themselves admitted in their
pleadings in CWJC No. 1403 of 2025 that the said methodology
was finalized after detailed consideration and formally approved
under Resolution No. 104-06 followed by Office Order No. 288
dated 06.03.2024.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that under ENN-06/2024, BSPHCL completed the
recruitment process up to the stage of declaration of final result
on 04.09.2025 vide Memo No. 707, whereby a list of 264
successful candidates was published against 553 vacancies on
the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee
headed by the General Manager (HR/Administration),
NBPDCL. Thereafter, shortlisted candidates were called for
document verification-cum-joining on 12.09.2025. However,
shortly before the scheduled reporting time, the process was
suddenly postponed citing “unavoidable reasons” and
subsequently cancelled on 23.09.2025 without assigning any
lawful or contemporaneous reason.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the aforesaid chronology demonstrates a sustained
pattern whereby employees are repeatedly invited to apply,
made to deposit fees, appear in examinations, await results and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
12/40
thereafter face abrupt cancellation after substantial completion
of the recruitment process. According to him, such repeated
conduct violates the principles of fairness and legitimate
expectation and is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India.
9. Learned Senior Counsel further relies upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in East Coast Railway
v. Mahadev Appa Rao reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 to contend
that although no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to
appointment, the State cannot refuse appointment in an arbitrary
manner and mere receipt of representations cannot justify
cancellation of a completed selection process without proper
application of mind.
10. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad
Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 2024 INSC 763 to submit
that administrative authorities cannot alter selection norms or
nullify completed recruitment processes in a manner defeating
fairness and equality.
11. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that it is
settled law that an administrative order must stand on the
reasons contained therein or in contemporaneous records. In this
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
13/40
regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief
Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405. It is
submitted that the impugned postponement and cancellation
orders do not contain any of the grounds now sought to be
introduced through the counter affidavit, such as alleged
violation of Article 14, merit-alone principle, natural justice,
wrongdoing by the Selection Committee or parity with external
recruitment. According to the petitioners, such post facto
justifications are legally impermissible.
12. It is further submitted that there is no allegation
of paper leak, fraud, impersonation, mass malpractice,
corruption or procedural impossibility, and the entire action of
the Respondents rests merely upon subsequent policy
dissatisfaction, which cannot constitute a lawful ground for
cancellation of a completed recruitment process.
13. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that during
the period 2022–2025, BSPHCL successfully completed several
external recruitment processes and inducted a substantial
number of candidates into service after completing all
formalities. However, in contrast, internal recruitment processes
meant exclusively for existing employees have repeatedly
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
14/40
suffered cancellation and disruption since 2022 despite such
employees already serving the Company. According to him, the
same demonstrates arbitrary and unequal administrative
treatment between external recruitment and internal career
progression channels without any rational justification.
14. On the aforesaid grounds, Learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of the impugned
orders of postponement and cancellation concerning ENN-
06/2024, for a direction upon the Respondents to act upon the
already published select list and issue appointment orders
accordingly, and for grant of consequential service benefits
including seniority, pay and continuity of service. It is further
prayed that any newly framed policy or regulation be directed to
operate prospectively without disturbing the rights accrued to
the petitioners under ENN-06/2024.
15. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents submits that Bihar State Power Holding
Company Limited (BSPHCL) and its subsidiary companies,
namely SBPDCL, NBPDCL, BSPGCL and BSPTCL, though
separate legal entities in the eye of law, are independently
registered companies and no liability of the State Government
was transferred to BSPHCL in terms of Clause 4 of the Transfer
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
15/40
Scheme read with Schedule-E thereto. It is further submitted
that BSPHCL, in consultation with its subsidiary companies,
took a policy decision to fill up internal vacancies and to
provide opportunity to existing employees possessing requisite
qualifications for higher posts while working on lower posts,
particularly in Class III and Class IV categories. Accordingly,
eligibility conditions and recruitment criteria were framed as
detailed in Annexure-11 to the writ application.
16. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Clause 7(A)
(c) of Employment Notice No. 06/2024 specifically provided
that a panel of candidates securing minimum qualifying marks
in the Computer Based Test (CBT) would be prepared on the
basis of date of joining in BSPHCL or its subsidiary companies,
i.e., on the basis of seniority, and in case of same date of joining,
seniority would be determined on the basis of marks obtained in
CBT followed by date of birth. It is further submitted that
combined panels were also contemplated for several categories
of posts, including Assistant, Correspondence Clerk, Store
Assistant, Assistant Electrical Engineer and Junior Electrical
Engineer posts.
17. It is further contended that pursuant to the
aforesaid conditions, the CBT examination was conducted on
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
16/40
02.06.2025 and 03.06.2025 at Patna and thereafter post-wise
results were prepared in accordance with the conditions
contained in the advertisement and the applicable Bihar
Reservation Rules. The results were accordingly published on
the Company’s website on 04.09.2025.
18. However, Learned Senior Counsel submits that
after publication of the results, several representations were
received from unions and applicants questioning the selection
methodology as well as the procedure adopted in preparation of
the panel. Consequently, the respondent-authorities undertook a
comprehensive review of the entire recruitment process,
whereupon several issues emerged. It is further submitted that
during such review it was observed that wherever appointment
is made through a competitive examination, the sole basis of
selection ought to be merit reflected through marks obtained in
the examination. However, under Employment Notice No.
06/2024, the panel had been prepared substantially on the basis
of date of initial appointment/seniority instead of marks
obtained in the CBT. Learned Senior Counsel further submits
that preparation of the merit list on the basis of seniority
effectively diluted and devalued the examination performance of
candidates and rendered the CBT marks largely ineffective.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
17/40
19. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
according to the respondents, such methodology was
inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and offended
Article 14 of the Constitution of India by treating unequal
candidates equally. It is also submitted that upon comparative
analysis, the result published on 04.09.2025 was found to be
inconsistent with standards and procedures followed in other
Government departments and institutions, thereby giving rise to
objections from various employee cadres. Learned Senior
Counsel further contends that upon detailed deliberations, it was
found that the selection process based primarily on seniority
was inequitable, impractical and contrary to the very objective
of conducting a CBT examination. According to the
respondents, the recruitment process under ENN-06/2024 was
neither a case of promotion based on seniority-cum-merit nor
merit-cum-seniority, rather it was akin to direct recruitment
from the open market where merit alone ought to prevail. It is
further submitted that in light of the aforesaid analysis, the
respondent-company took a conscious decision that future
internal recruitment processes should also be conducted on the
same principles as external recruitment, namely on the basis of
marks obtained in the examination and in accordance with
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
18/40
updated Bihar Government Reservation Rules. The matter was
thereafter placed before the Board of Directors, which affirmed
the said view and further directed framing of comprehensive
regulations and guidelines governing internal recruitment.
20. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
pursuant to Resolution No. 125-05.02 passed in the 125
th
Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 17.09.2025, Office
Order No. 1444 dated 23.09.2025 was issued whereby the
advertisement, examination and result published under
Employment Notice No. 06/2024 were cancelled. It is further
submitted that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
order dated 23.09.2025 is found to be unsatisfactory or legally
unsustainable, still the petitioners do not acquire any
indefeasible right to appointment merely because their names
appeared in the panel or select list. According to the
respondents, inclusion in a select list does not confer any
enforceable right to appointment and therefore no writ of
mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to appoint
the petitioners.
21. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Learned
Senior Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
19/40
v. Union of India reported in (1991)3 SCC 4 and Kulwinder
Pal Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in
(2016) 6 SCC 532.
22. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
learned Sr. Counsel for the respondents submits that the present
writ application is fit to be dismissed with costs.
23. After hearing the parties from both sides and
upon consideration of the materials available on record, this
Court has reached the conclusion that the present writ petition
has been filed seeking to set aside Memo No. 727 dated
23.09.2025, Memo No. 712 dated 11.09.2025, and Memo No.
728 dated 23.09.2025.
24. The sole issue involved in the present writ
petition is whether the internal recruitment process, which was
confined to employees already in service and broadly covered
under the category of workmen in Class III and Class IV posts
pursuant to ENN 01 of 2022 (Internal), ENN 03 of 2022
(Internal), and ENN 06 of 2024 (Internal), could be cancelled
after the issuance of the final result through Memo No. 707
dated 04.09.2025. By the said memo, a committee was
constituted for verification of the documents of the selected
candidates and for facilitating their joining, for which the date
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
20/40
12.09.2025 had been fixed. The recruitment process was
subsequently postponed through Memo No. 712 dated
11.09.2025 without assigning any reason, and later cancelled on
the ground that the respondents, in a meeting of the Board of
Directors, had decided to regulate internal recruitment in the
same manner as recruitment conducted for persons not already
in employment.
25. From the factual matrix of the case, it transpires
that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process
initiated pursuant to ENN 01 of 2022, which was subsequently
cancelled with a direction that the applications already
submitted would be adjusted against future advertisements.
Thereafter, ENN 03 of 2022 was issued, which was also
cancelled due to unavoidable reasons. Subsequently, ENN 06 of
2024 was issued pursuant to the Internal Recruitment Policy
approved in the 104
th
Board Meeting of the respondents. In
furtherance thereof, Office Order No. 288 dated 06.03.2024 was
issued, followed by Advertisement ENN 06 of 2024.
26. The recruitment process under ENN 06 of 2024
was completed, and the final result was declared on 04.09.2025
through Memo No. 707, whereby a list of 264 successful
candidates was published against 553 vacancies on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
21/40
recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee
headed by the General Manager (HR/Administration),
NBPDCL. Thereafter, the shortlisted candidates were called for
document verification-cum-joining on 12.09.2025. However, a
notice contained in Memo No. 712 dated 11.09.2025 was issued
stating that the recruitment process under ENN 06 of 2024
(Internal) stood postponed. No reason whatsoever was assigned
therein, except the vague expression "due to unavoidable
reasons." Subsequently, pursuant to Resolution No. 125-05.02
adopted in the 125th Board Meeting held on 17.09.2025, the
recruitment process under ENN 06 of 2024 (Internal) was
cancelled. Even in the said decision, no reasons were assigned.
It was merely stated that recruitment through internal
employment processes for persons already in service and
recruitment through external employment processes for persons
not in service would henceforth be treated on the same footing
and governed by the Bihar Government Reservation Rules.
From ENN 06 of 2024 (Internal), as contained in Annexure-11,
it is evident that the Bihar Government Reservation Rules had
already been followed, and the requisite qualifications had been
duly prescribed. Further, in the cancellation notice contained in
Memo No. 728 dated 23.09.2025, it was indicated in Clause III
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
22/40
that separate rules governing the internal recruitment process
would be framed subsequently, and fresh advertisements would
thereafter be issued, pursuant to which a fresh examination
would be conducted.
27. Thus, the situation before this Court is that the
respondent-company, after advertising the posts, completing the
recruitment process, and declaring the final result, but before
permitting the selected candidates to join, decided to alter the
governing rules of recruitment. Such an action amounts to
changing the rules of the game after the game has been played.
Moreover, no reasons have been assigned in support of such a
decision.
28. For the purpose of deciding the present case, it is
necessary to consider the judgments relied upon by the parties.
In the case of East Coast Railway (supra), relied upon by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, and 21 as follows::-
“8. There is no quarrel with the
well-settled proposition of law that an order
passed by a public authority exercising
administrative/executive or statutory powers
must be judged by the reasons stated in the
order or any record or file contemporaneously
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
23/40
maintained. It follows that the infirmity arising
out of the absence of reasons cannot be cured by
the authority passing the order stating such
reasons in an affidavit filed before the court
where the validity of any such order is under
challenge. The legal position in this regard is
settled by the decision of this Court in Commr.
of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji [1951 SCC
1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] wherein this Court
observed:
9. … 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 actings and conduct of those to
whom they are addressed and must be
construed objectively with reference to
the language used in the order itself.”
9. Reference may also be made to
the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh
Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC
405] where this Court reiterated the above
principle in the following words:
“8. The second equally
relevant matter is that when a statutory
functionary makes an order based on
certain grounds, its validity must be
judged by the reasons so mentioned and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
24/40
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.”
10. Later decisions of this Court
in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of
Kerala [(2004) 2 SCC 105 : 2004 SCC (L&S)
350] and Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.
Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [(2005) 7 SCC
627] have restated the legal position settled by
the earlier two decisions noticed above.
11. Relying upon the decision of
this Court in Union of India v. Tarun K.
Singh [(2003) 11 SCC 768 : 2004 SCC (L&S)
316] , Mr Malhotra all the same argued that the
challenge to the order cancelling the test was
legally untenable as no candidate had any
legally enforceable right to any post until he
was selected and an order of appointment issued
in his favour. Cancellation of the selection
process on the ground of malpractices could
not, therefore, be subjected to judicial scrutiny
before a writ court, at the instance of a
candidate who had not even found a place in the
select list.
12. A Constitution Bench of this
Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of
India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S)
800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95] had an occasion to
examine whether a candidate seeking
appointment to a civil post can be regarded to
have acquired an indefeasible right to
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
25/40
appointment against such post merely because
his name appeared in the merit list of
candidates for such post. Answering the
question in the negative this Court observed:
“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. 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. Subash Chander
Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973
SCC (L&S) 488] , Neelima
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
26/40
Shangla v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4
SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759]
or Jatinder Kumar v. State of
Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC
(L&S) 174] .”
13. 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.
14. To the same effect is the
decision of this Court in UT of
Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh [(1993) 1 SCC
154 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 144 : (1993) 23 ATC
431] where again this Court reiterated that
while a candidate who finds a place in the select
list may have no vested right to be appointed to
any post, in the absence of any specific rules
entitling him to the same, he may still be
aggrieved of his non-appointment if the
authority concerned acts arbitrarily or in a
mala fide manner. That was also a case where
the selection process had been cancelled by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
27/40
Chandigarh Administration upon receipt of
complaints about the unfair and injudicious
manner in which the select list of candidates for
appointment as conductors in CTU was
prepared by the Selection Board. An inquiry got
conducted into the said complaint proved the
allegations made in the complaint to be true. It
was in that backdrop that action taken by the
Chandigarh Administration was held to be
neither discriminatory nor unjustified as the
same was duly supported by valid reasons for
cancelling what was described by this Court to
be as a “dubious selection”.
21. In the instant case the order
passed by the competent authority does not state
any reasons whatsoever for the cancellation of
the typing test. It is nobody's case that any such
reasons were set out even in any
contemporaneous record or file. In the absence
of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to
assume that the authority had properly applied
its mind before passing the order cancelling the
test.”
29. The learned counsel has further placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shashi
Bhusan Prasad Singh (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
paragraphs 26 and 28 of the said judgment, has held as under:
“26. Presently, despite the
preparation of the Final Select List which
signals the conclusion of the appointment
process, the State Government seeks to scrap
the entire process and undertake a fresh
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
28/40
appointment process under the New Rules. In
the considered opinion of this Court, this
amounts to effectively changing the rules of the
game after the game was played which is
impermissible and deprives the candidates of
their legitimate right of consideration under the
previous Rules. “
28. In this regard, the field is
held by the three-judge bench decision of this
Court in K. Manjusree (supra) wherein the
Court, relying on previous decisions, explicitly
held that introducing new requirements into the
selection process after the entire selection
process was completed amounted to changing
the rules of the game after the game was played.
Relevant portions of the judgement are
reproduced as under:
“27. But what could not have
been done was the second change, by
introduction of the criterion of minimum
marks for the interview. The minimum marks
for interview had never been adopted by the
Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for
selection of District & Sessions Judges,
(Grade II). In regard to the present selection,
the Administrative Committee merely
adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The
previous procedure as stated above was to
apply minimum marks only for written
examination and not for the oral
examination. We have referred to the proper
interpretation of the earlier Resolutions
dated 24-7- 2001 and 21-2-2002 and held
that what was adopted on 30-11-2004 was
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
29/40
only minimum marks for written examination
and not for the interviews. Therefore,
introduction of the requirement of minimum
marks for interview, after the entire selection
process (consisting of written examination
and interview) was completed, would amount
to changing the rules of the game after the
game was played which is clearly
impermissible. We are fortified in this view by
several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient
to refer to three of them — P.K.
Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984)
2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 214] , Umesh
Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3
SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] and
Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa
[(1987) 4 SCC 646 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 36 :
(1987) 5 ATC 148] 32. In Maharashtra SRTC
v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve [(2001) 10
SCC 51 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 720] this Court
observed that “the rules of the game,
meaning thereby, that the criteria for
selection cannot be altered by the authorities
concerned in the middle or after the process
of selection has commenced”. In this case the
position is much more serious. Here, not only
the rules of the game were changed, but they
were changed after the game had been
played and the results of the game were being
awaited. That is unacceptable and
impermissible.”
30. So far as the judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill
(supra), relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
30/40
petitioners, is concerned, the same is, in the opinion of this
Court, not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the said
judgment pertains to election law and not to service
jurisprudence.
31. So far as the contention advanced by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is
concerned, it has been vehemently argued that the mere
inclusion of a candidate's name in the select list or merit list
does not confer upon such candidate any indefeasible right to
appointment. According to the respondents, it is always open to
the employer not to fill up the advertised vacancies and, if such
a decision is taken for valid and bona fide reasons, the same
cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. It has further
been submitted that the decision to cancel the recruitment
process was taken by the Board in its meeting, wherein it was
resolved that a separate set of rules governing fresh internal
recruitment would be framed. It is on account of the said
decision that the recruitment process was cancelled. According
to the respondents, the said decision is a reasoned and policy-
based decision, which was duly communicated to the petitioners
through Memo No. 727 dated 23.09.2025.
32. This Court also deems it necessary to examine
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
31/40
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the
learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. In Shankarsan
Dash (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even where
a number of vacancies are notified and an adequate number of
candidates are found suitable for appointment, the successful
candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed
against the existing vacancies. Ordinarily, an advertisement
inviting applications merely constitutes an invitation to eligible
candidates to participate in the recruitment process, and mere
selection does not create a vested right to appointment. Unless
the applicable recruitment rules provide otherwise, the State is
under no legal obligation to fill up all or any of the advertised
vacancies.
33. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further
clarified that the aforesaid principle does not confer upon the
State an unfettered licence to act arbitrarily. Any decision not to
fill up the vacancies must be taken bona fide and for valid,
germane and justifiable reasons. The Court further observed
that, where the vacancies are ultimately filled, the State is bound
to adhere to the comparative merit of the candidates as reflected
in the selection process, and no discrimination can be permitted
in the matter of appointment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
32/40
34. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kulwinder Pal Singh (supra). In the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 9,
10, 11, 12 and 16 as under:
“9. There is no denying that the
appellants were placed in the select list at Sl.
Nos. 35, 36 and 37. In the sixteenth meeting of
the Administrative Committee held on 8-12-
2010, considering the representation of the
appellants it was “resolved to recommend,
subject to approval of the Full Court, to the
Government of Punjab for their appointment as
Civil Judges subject to availability of
vacancies”. But in the eighteenth meeting of the
Administrative Committee held on 6-7-2011, the
Committee took note of the direction issued by
the Supreme Court to appoint twenty-two
candidates selected in the years 1998, 1999,
2000 and 2001 who were not earlier appointed
due to Sidhu Scam. At that time only six
vacancies were available. To accommodate
those twenty-two candidates, the Government of
Punjab had sanctioned sixteen temporary posts,
with the stipulation that the post will be
abolished one by one as and when a vacancy
becomes available. Relevant minutes of the
eighteenth meeting of the Administrative
Committee dated 6-7-2011 reads as under:
“The writ petitions filed by 22
candidates selected in the years 1998,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
33/40
1999, 2000 and 2001 were allowed on 27-
5-2008 [Sirandeep Singh Panag v. State of
Punjab, 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 776 : ILR
(2008) 2 P&H 188] and were ordered to
be appointed as Civil Judges in Punjab. At
that time only 6 vacancies were available.
To give effect to the said judgment of this
Court, 16 temporary posts were sanctioned
on 22-7-2008 by the Punjab Government
with the stipulation that the posts will be
abolished one by one as and when a
vacancy becomes available. As per the
orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
that matter, only 17 candidates were issued
appointment letters, 3 resultant vacancies
of the year 2007-2008 stood consumed
with the joining of 17 candidates.”
10. It is fairly well settled that
merely because the name of a candidate finds
place in the select list, it would not give him
indefeasible right to get an appointment as well.
The name of a candidate may appear in the
merit list but he has no indefeasible right to an
appointment (vide Food Corporation of
India v. Bhanu Lodh [Food Corporation of
India v. Bhanu Lodh, (2005) 3 SCC 618 : 2005
SCC (L&S) 433] , All India SC & ST
Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen [All India SC
& ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen, (2001)
6 SCC 380 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 362]
and UPSC v. Gaurav Dwivedi [UPSC v. Gaurav
Dwivedi, (1999) 5 SCC 180 : 1999 SCC (L&S)
982] .
11. This Court again in State of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
34/40
Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda [State of
Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777 :
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 313] , held as under :
(SCC p. 783, paras 14 & 16)
“14. A person whose name
appears in the select list does not acquire
any indefeasible right of appointment.
Empanelment at best is a condition of
eligibility for the purpose of appointment
and by itself does not amount to selection
or create a vested right to be appointed.
The vacancies have to be filled up as per
the statutory rules and in conformity with
the constitutional mandate.
* * *
16. A select list cannot be treated
as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments,
that vacancy can be filled up taking the names
from that list as and when it is so required.”
12. In Manoj Manu v. Union of
India [Manoj Manu v. Union of India, (2013) 12
SCC 171 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 706] , it was
held that (SCC p. 176, para 10) merely because
the name of a candidate finds place in the select
list, it would not give the candidate an
indefeasible right to get an appointment as well.
It is always open to the Government not to fill
up the vacancies, however such decision should
not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Once the
decision is found to be based on some valid
reason, the Court would not issue any
mandamus to the Government to fill up the
vacancies. As noticed earlier, because twenty-
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
35/40
two other candidates were declared successful
by the Supreme Court pertaining to the selection
of the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 as Civil
Judges (Junior Division), they were to be
accommodated, as rightly resolved by the
Administrative Committee in the meeting dated
6-7-2011. The three resultant vacancies of the
year 2007-2008 stood consumed with the
joining of the said seventeen candidates and the
same could not be filled up from the select list of
that year. The decision of the Administrative
Committee observing that the three resultant
vacancies stood consumed is based on factual
situation arising there and cannot be said to be
arbitrary.
16. The learned counsel for the
appellants contended that when the other
candidates were appointed in the post against
dereserved category, the same benefit should
also be extended to the appellants. Article 14 of
the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate
illegality and it does not envisage negative
equalities. In State of U.P. v. Rajkumar
Sharma [State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma,
(2006) 3 SCC 330 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 565] it
was held as under :
“15. Even if in some cases
appointments have been made by
mistake or wrongly, that does not confer
any right on another person. Article
14of the Constitution does not envisage
negative equality, and if the State
committed the mistake it cannot be
forced to perpetuate the same mistake.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
36/40
(See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [Sneh
Prabha v. State of U.P., (1996) 7 SCC
426] ; Jaipur Development
Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [Jaipur
Development Authority v. Daulat Mal
Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35] ; State of
Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [State of
Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3
SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S)
801] ; Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. DG,
Health Services [Faridabad CT Scan
Centre v. DG, Health Services, (1997) 7
SCC 752] ; Jalandhar Improvement
Trust v. Sampuran Singh [Jalandhar
Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh,
(1999) 3 SCC 494] ; State of
Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal [State of
Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC
240 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171] ; Yogesh
Kumar v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh
Kumar v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3
SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S)
346] ; Union of India v. International
Trading Co. [Union of
India v. International Trading Co.,
(2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak
Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha
Maryadit v. Indore Development
Authority [Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore
Development Authority, (2006) 2 SCC
604] .)”
Merely because some
persons have been granted benefit
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
37/40
illegally or by mistake, it does not confer
right upon the appellants to claim
equality.”
35. Upon a careful consideration of the aforesaid
judgments, it transpires to this Court that although a
candidate, merely by virtue of being declared successful in a
recruitment process, does not acquire any indefeasible right to
appointment against the existing vacancies, and the employer
is under no legal obligation to fill up all or any of the
advertised vacancies, the law is equally well settled that such
a principle does not confer upon the State or its
instrumentalities an unfettered licence to act arbitrarily. The
decision to cancel a recruitment process or not to make
appointments must be foun upon bona fide, valid and
justifiable reasons. Such a decision cannot be arbitrary,
whimsical, capricious or unsupported by any discernible
rationale.
36. In the present case, the recruitment process
was initially commenced in the year 2022 for employees
already serving under the respondent-company. The very
nomenclature of the advertisement, namely
"Employee/Internal Recruitment", indicates that it was a
special recruitment drive exclusively meant for employees in
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
38/40
service. It is not in dispute that the said recruitment process
was undertaken pursuant to a policy decision taken by the
Board in its 104th Meeting, which ultimately culminated in
the issuance of ENN 06 of 2024 (Internal). Pursuant to the
said advertisement, the entire selection process was completed
and the final result was published. A list of successful
candidates was notified and a committee was constituted for
verification of documents and facilitating their joining. The
selected candidates were also called upon to appear for
document verification-cum-joining. However, at the eleventh
hour, the process was first postponed and thereafter cancelled.
Significantly, no reason whatsoever was assigned in Memo
No. 712 dated 11.09.2025, except the vague expression "due
to unavoidable reasons". Thereafter, the recruitment process
was cancelled on the basis of a subsequent decision allegedly
taken in the 125th Board Meeting.
37. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
mere fact that a subsequent Board Meeting resolved to frame
fresh rules governing internal recruitment cannot, by itself,
constitute a valid ground for cancelling a recruitment process
which had already been completed in terms of an earlier
policy decision of the Board and had reached the stage of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
39/40
joining. The respondents have failed to disclose any
compelling, legal or administrative reason necessitating such
cancellation. A mere change in policy, without any cogent
justification and after completion of the selection process,
cannot be permitted to defeat the legitimate expectation of the
successful candidates.
38. This Court is, therefore, of the firm view that
the decision of the Board to cancel the recruitment process
under ENN 06 of 2024 (Internal) is arbitrary, unreasonable
and unsustainable in law. No legally tenable reason has been
assigned in Memo No. 727 dated 23.09.2025 for rescinding
the earlier decision of the Board, pursuant to which the
recruitment process had been undertaken and substantially
completed.
39. Accordingly, Memo No. 727 dated
23.09.2025 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 4,
namely the General Manager (HR/Administration), BSPHCL,
Memo No. 712 dated 11.09.2025 issued under the signature of
Respondent No. 4, and Memo No. 728 dated 23.09.2025
issued under the signature of Respondent No. 4, are hereby
quashed and set aside.
40. Consequently, the writ petition stands
Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
40/40
allowed.
41. The respondent-company is directed to
complete the recruitment process pursuant to ENN 06 of 2024
(Internal), including all consequential formalities, within a
period of three months from the date of receipt/production of
a copy of this order.
Ashwini/-
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 28.04.2026
Uploading Date 15.06.2026
Transmission Date NA
Legal Notes
Add a Note....