No Indefeasible Right to Appointment After Interview; Recruitment Process Need Not Be Concluded Merely Because Selection Had Progressed: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Name: Dinesh Yadav v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 14 July 2026

Citation: CWP-21099-2026

Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere participation in a recruitment process, successful completion of the written examination, appearance in the interview or even inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment. A recruitment advertisement is only an invitation to apply, and unless the governing statutory rules impose a legal obligation to fill the advertised vacancies, the employer is under no duty to complete the recruitment process.

The Court further held that a writ of mandamus can be issued only where the petitioner establishes a corresponding statutory duty on the authority and an enforceable legal right in his favour. In the absence of any statutory obligation requiring the respondents to conclude the recruitment initiated by the erstwhile Mewat Model Schools Society, no direction for appointment could be issued.

Summary: The petitioner sought quashing of the order rejecting his claim for appointment to the post of PGT (Political Science) pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Mewat Model Schools Society in 2017. He contended that he had successfully cleared the written examination, appeared in the interview held on 17 July 2020 and that the recruitment process remained incomplete only because of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the petitioner, after the interview only two eligible candidates remained for the two advertised vacancies, and therefore the respondents ought to have finalised the recruitment instead of rejecting his claim on the ground that the Society had subsequently been taken over by the School Education Department.

The petitioner further argued that the recruitment process had substantially progressed before the administrative takeover and that he could not be deprived of appointment merely because the Society ceased to exist as the appointing authority. He also relied upon earlier proceedings and previous directions issued by the High Court concerning consideration of his representations.

The State opposed the petition by submitting that the recruitment process never culminated in the issuance of appointment letters and that no vested right accrued merely because the petitioner had participated in the selection process. It was further argued that, after the takeover, appointments to the post of PGT became governed by the Mewat District School Education (Group-B) Service Rules, 2012 and could be made only in accordance with the applicable statutory framework.

The High Court observed that the legal position on the issue is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, Union of India v. K.V. Vijeesh and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala. These authorities consistently hold that a successful candidate does not acquire an enforceable right to appointment merely because vacancies were advertised or the selection process had substantially progressed. The employer retains the discretion not to fill the vacancies, provided the decision is bona fide, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory.

The Court found that the petitioner failed to identify any statutory provision requiring the respondents to conclude the recruitment process initiated by the erstwhile Society after its takeover by the School Education Department. Since appointments to the post were thereafter governed by the applicable statutory service rules, the respondents could not be compelled to complete the earlier recruitment process in the absence of a corresponding legal duty.

The Court also noted that no mala fides, arbitrariness or discrimination had been established against the respondents. In these circumstances, the petitioner had failed to demonstrate either an enforceable legal right or a corresponding statutory obligation capable of being enforced through a writ of mandamus.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim and held that neither participation in the recruitment process nor appearance in the interview conferred an enforceable right to appointment. In the absence of any statutory duty requiring the respondents to conclude the recruitment initiated by the erstwhile Society, no writ of certiorari or mandamus could be issued.