1 CGHC010258152021 2026:CGHC:34490 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5792 of 2021 1 - Rajkumar R/o Ramchandra Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sevari, Post Sevari , Tehsil Rajpur , District Balrampur Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Finance Department , Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Balrampur District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Rajpur , District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Program Officer Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rozgar Yojna , Janpad Panchayat Rajpur, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Harsh Verma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Siddharth Ojha, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Saksham Soni, Advocate holding the brief of Shri R.S. Baghel, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06/08/2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice/order dated 24-08-2021 (Annex.P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to follow the circular dated 02-06-2020 (Annexure P-6) and the appointment proceeding through the advertisement dated 10-10-2019 be completed till the finalization of the appointment of the candidates. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.4 issued an advertisement dated 22.8.2016 for filling up the post of Gram Rozgaar Sahayak in Janpad Panchayat Raipur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj. The petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates submitted their applications and thereafter, the selection process was conducted. The petitioner was selected for the said post; however, the entire selection process was cancelled by respondent No.4 vide order dated 5.1.2018 on the ground that irregularities had been found in the selection process. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued another advertisement dated 10.10.2019 for filling up the same post. The petitioner again applied; participated in the recruitment process and was once again selected. However, respondent No.4 cancelled the entire selection process vide order dated 24.8.2021 on the ground that approval had not been obtained from the finance department. It is also observed in the order that the decision has been taken pursuant to an order issued 3 by the Chief Medical Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Balrampur-Ramanujganj dated 16.8.2021. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.8.2021 by filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was duly selected by respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 was fully aware that the requisite approval from the finance department had not been obtained but entire selection was completed and subsequently cancelled. He would contend that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner rather respondent No.4 committed an error in issuing the advertisement for the post. He would submit that though the petitioner cannot be appointed on the said post as selection process was cancelled way-back in the year 2021, but he is entitled to get monetary compensation. He would pray that respondent No.4 may be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that in the first round, the selection process was cancelled on account of irregularities found therein and subsequently, it was cancelled by respondent No.4 because the requisite approval had not been obtained from the finance department. It is further argued that the decision was taken pursuant to an order issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat. They would submit that the petitioner has not impleaded Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat as a party respondent nor has he challenged the order issued by the said authority. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 4 6. In the first round, the selection process was cancelled by respondent No.4 on account of various complaints received indicating irregularities in the selection process, and the petitioner accepted the said decision. Subsequently, respondent No.4 issued an advertisement dated 10.10.2019 for filling up the post of Rozgaar Sahayak. After completion of the entire selection process, respondent No.4 cancelled the same on the ground that the requisite approval had not been obtained from the Finance Department. Respondent No.4 as well as Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat was aware that obtaining approval from the finance department was mandatory before issuing the advertisement; however, no such approval was obtained and after completion of the selection process, Annexure-P/1 came to be issued. 7. It is well-settled principle of law that mere inclusion in a select list or participation in the selection process does not confer upon a candidate an absolute or indefeasible right to employment. It is equally well settled that the administrative discretion of the appointing authority in matters of recruitment must be exercised fairly, bona fide, and in the public interest, and not whimsically or arbitrarily. If a selection process is cancelled without cogent reasons or on account of a sudden policy shift that violates the statutory rules, the Court may set aside such a decision as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the present case, respondent No.4 cancelled the selection process on two occasions, and the petitioner, who was selected in both the rounds, was the one who suffered. In the second round, respondent No.4 failed to obtain prior approval from the Finance Department. The petitioner cannot be penalized for the mistake committed by the State 5 authorities. It is also true that the selection process was cancelled way back in the year 2021, and no direction can now be issued to respondent No. 4 to appoint the petitioner to the said post. Therefore, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 4 is directed to pay monetary compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi