[2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6057 of 2025 --------- Amit Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Arun Kumar Jha, resident of Baneshwar Nagar, Southside Road Emnating Nagar, Pragya Kendra and Shiva Mandir, Chutia Namkum Ghat Road, Namkum, P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary (Posts) and Chairman, Postal Service Board, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, P.O. Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.S. New Delhi-110001, District New Delhi. 2. The Director General (DE), Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.O. Dak Bhawan, P.S.-New Delhi- 110001, District New Delhi. 3. The Member (Personnel) Postal Services Board, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.O. + P.S. -Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001, District New Delhi. 4. The Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand. 5. The Director, Postal Service, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. The Assistant Director of Postal Services (Personnel), Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 7. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Ranchi Division, P.O. Ranchi G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, D.S.G.I. Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, C.G.C. ----------- CAV/Reserved on 09.04.2026 Pronounced on 21/04/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in O.A. No. OA/051/00315/2021 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 2 original application has been dismissed declining to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition having been enumerated from the original application needs to be referred here which reads as under: 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in the LDC Examination for promotion to the cadre of Inspector Posts for the year 2015-16 bearing Roll No.1100032 under unreserved (UR) quota held on 22.10.2016 & 23.10.2016. There were three unreserved vacant post in Jharkhand Circle. The result of the LDC was declared on 21.06.2017. 4. The petitioner having obtained 786 marks ranked 4th as per the combined merit list in the Jharkhand Circle. Since there were three vacancies in Inspector Posts (IP) cadre under UR category in Jharkhand Circle for the year 2015-16, he did not come in the zone of selection to the extent of notified vacancies i.e., 3. The last selected candidate i.e. Uttam Kumar had obtained 792 marks. 5. Prior to declaration of the result of the LDC examination of 2015-16 i.e. 21.06.2017, the Tribunal passed an order dt. 21.04.2017 in OA No. 051/00174/2016 (Kumar Abhishek Vs UOI & Ors) and directed the respondents to include the name of Kumar Abhishek in LDC examination, 2014 for promotion of the Inspector posts. 6. Therefore, declaration of the result of Kumar Abhishek again for the year 2015-16 as per letter dt. 21.06.2017 ignoring the merit of the petitioner is [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 3 undue and against the recruitment rules. Finally, Kumar Abhishek was accommodated in the revised and recast merit list in LDC Examination, Inspector Post 2014 of Jharkhand Circle as per Postal Directorate letter dt. 17.08.2017. 7. The petitioner submitted his representation dt. 28.08.2017 to the respondent no.1 and his claim was rejected vide order dt. 04.12.2017. Thereafter, he submitted an appeal dt. 13.12.2017 before respondent no.1. 8. Feeling aggrieved with the decisions of the respondents, applicant filed OA No. 544 of 2018 before the Tribunal and the said OA was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2018 with observation that as the appeal is stated to be pending before respondent no. 1, the said OA is disposed of without entering into the merit of the case with direction to respondent no. 1 that if any such appeal is still pending consideration then the same may be considered keeping in mind the benefit granted to other similarly situated candidates as mentioned in the OA. After such consideration if the petitioner’s grievance is found to be genuine then the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for similar benefits as has been granted to other similarly situated candidates as mentioned above within a period of six weeks of receipt of this order. 9. Since the date of appeal i.e. 26.08.2017 was inadvertently typed in place of 13.12.2017 in 9th & 13th line of page 3rd & in 4th line in the final order. The same was corrected vide order dt. 23.08.2019 passed in MA No. 309/2019 in CP No. 112/2019 arising out of OA No. 544/2018. 10. In pursuance of the Tribunal's order 23.08.2019 passed in MA No. 309/2019 in OA No. 544/2018 order dt. 11.09.2018 passed in OA No. [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 4 544/2018, the representation dt. 13.12.2017 of petitioner considering the case with objectivity, he did not find any merit in the representation dt. 13.12.2017 of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dt. 28.01.2020. 11. Aggrieved with the order dated 28.01.2020, the petitioner preferred O.A. No.051/00315/2021 before the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 12. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties had dismissed the original application being O.A. No.051/00315/2021 vide order dated 29.10.2024. 13. It is evident as per the pleading made as referred hereinabove that the petitioner appeared in the LDC Examination for promotion to the cadre of Inspector Posts for the year 2015-16 under unreserved (UR) quota and there were three unreserved vacant post in Jharkhand Circle. The result of the LDCE was declared on 21.06.2017. 14. The petitioner obtained 786 marks and ranked 4th as per the combined merit list in the Jharkhand Circle. Since there were three vacancies in Inspector Posts (IP) cadre under UR category in Jharkhand Circle for the year 2015-16, he did not come in the zone of selection to the extent of notified vacancies i.e., 3. The last selected candidate i.e. Uttam Kumar had obtained 792 marks. 15. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to declaration of the result of the LDCE of 2015-16 i.e. 21.06.2017, the Tribunal passed an order dt. 21.04.2017 in OA No. 051/174/2016 (Kumar Abhishek Vs UOI & Ors) [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 5 directing the respondents to include the name of Kumar Abhishek in LDCE, 2014 for promotion of the Inspector posts. 16. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his representation dt. 26.08.2017 to the respondent no. 1 and his claim was rejected vide order dt. 04.12.2017. Thereafter, he submitted an appeal dt. 13.12.2017 before respondent no.1. 17. Feeling aggrieved with the decisions of the respondents, applicant filed OA No. 544 of 2018 before the Tribunal and the said OA was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2018 with observation that as the appeal dated 13.12.2017 is stated to be pending before respondent no. 1, the said OA is disposed of without entering into the merit of the case with direction to respondent no. 1 that if any such appeal is still pending consideration then the same may be considered keeping in mind the benefit granted to other similarly situated candidates. 18. In pursuance of the Tribunal's order 23.08.2019 passed in MA No. 309/2019 in OA No. 544/2018 order dt. 11.09.2018 passed in OA No. 544/2018, the representation dt. 13.12.2017 of petitioner considering the case with objectivity, he did not find any merit in the representation dt. 13.12.2017 of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dt. 28.01.2020. 19. Aggrieved with the order dated 28.01.2020, the petitioner preferred O.A. No.051/00315/2021 before the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 20. The written statement was filed defending the decision so taken by the respondent. 21. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties had dismissed [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 6 the original application being O.A. No.051/00315/2021 vide order dated 29.10.2024. 22. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this writ petition. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 23. Mr. Kashish Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the following grounds: (i) The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact of applicability of the vacancy for the vacancy year 2015-16 after appointment of one of the candidates, namely, Kumar Abhishek who although was the candidate for the vacancy year 2014 but having not been selected, moved to the learned Tribunal and in pursuance of the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.051/174/2016 [Kumar Abhishek vs. UOI & Ors.] he was appointed to the vacancy of the year 2014 making place of one vacancy in which the petitioner ought to have been appointed being 4th in number in the merit list as also availability of the vacancy after shifting of Kumar Abhishek. But, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal and as such, the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from error. (ii) It has been contended that the learned Tribunal has also not appreciated that the total number of vacancies for the year 2015-16 which was 03 as per the notified vacancy in the advertisement in question but the aforesaid fact has been ignored depriving the [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 7 petitioner from the benefit of his appointment even though he has secured 786 marks and numbered 4th in rank in the merit list 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, needs interference. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent: 25. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned DSGI appearing for the respondents has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned order: (i) It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has rightly not been appointed since he has secured lesser marks and further on the ground of the selection process having been completed. (ii) It has been submitted that merely because one of the candidates has been shifted from the vacancy year 2015-16 to vacancy year 2014, no right is being conferred upon the petitioner for being appointed. It has been further submitted by filing the decision taken by the respondent authority that actually there were 03 vacancies as it was notified in the advertisement but subsequent to shifting of Kumar Abhishek by the order passed by the learned Tribunal for the vacancy year 2014 one vacancy upon which the said Kumar Abhishek was to be appointed in pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal has been shifted to the vacancy year 2014 leading to reduction in the number of vacancies from 03 to 02 which is evident from the note as available/evident at Anx. – D and Anx. – G as brought on record by way of counter affidavit. [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 8 (iii) It has been contended that the petitioner, even after shifting of Kumar Abhishek from the vacancy year 2015-16 to the vacancy year 2014, he ranks at sl. No.03, as such, the two vacancies which were available in consequence of shifting of vacancy in compliance of the order passed by the learned Tribunal for the vacancy year 2015-16, the petitioner has got no right to be appointed beyond the number of vacancy. 26. Learned counsel for the respondents, based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, needs no interference. Response: 27. In response to the ground as has been agitated on behalf of the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the document upon which the respondent is now relying, the same was not placed before the learned Tribunal and as such, the same may not be allowed to be taken into consideration. Analysis 28. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order. 29. The fact which is not in dispute in the present case is that one Kumar Abhishek was the candidate for the vacancy year 2014 but for one reason or the other, he was not appointed. He was compelled to approach the learned Tribunal by filing original application being O.A. NO.051/174/2016 which was decided on 21.04.2017 with a direction upon the respondent to decide the case of the said Kumar Abhishek but in the [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 9 meanwhile, a fresh advertisement was published for the Jharkhand circle. The petitioner along with other including Kumar Abhishek have participated in the process of selection. 30. The comparative merit list was prepared in which the name of Kumar Abhishek has been shown at sl. No.2 while the name of the petitioner has been shown to be at sl. No.4. for ready reference, the merit list as has been brought on record in the tabular chart is being reproduced as under: JHARKHAND Combined Merit List of LDCE IP 2015-16 22nd and 23rd of October, 2016 Sl. No. Name ROLL NO ATTENDANCE CAT ABS1 ABS2 ABS3 ABS4 MRK1 MRK2 MRK3 MRK4 TOTAL APS STATUS 1 SUBHASH CHANDRA PANDEY 100053 UR 232 208 248 236 924 N QUALIFI 2 KUMAR ABHISHEK 100008 UR 174 186 232 222 814 N QUALIFI 3 UTTAM KUMAR 100052 UR 172 164 234 222 792 N QUALIFI 4 AMIT KUMAR 100032 UR 186 192 208 200 786 N QUALIFI 5 MD KHALID 100031 UR 186 184 216 184 770 N QUALIFI … 31. The respondent authority in the meanwhile, i.e., after making an application in pursuance of the advertisement of the vacancy year 2014 has considered the case of Kumar Abhishek and has decided to appoint him for the vacancy year 2014. Accordingly, he was appointed. 32. The petitioner, therefore, has agitated the grievance that since the number of vacancies for the Jharkhand circle was 03 in number as per the advertisement notified and as such, after shifting of Kumar Abhishek, the petitioner being 3rd in the merit list ought to have been appointed. 33. Learned Tribunal has rejected the said plea on the following reasons: [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 10 “19. The case of applicant is not similar to the case of Shri Kumar Abhishek. The result of Shri Kumar Abhishek was declared due to the reason that he cannot be deprived from his right because of an ineligible candidate being allowed to appear in the examination of 2014 and taking up a slot which he did not deserve. The department was also held responsible for their mistake because they have not properly scrutinized all the applications with regard to eligibility whereas in the present case the selection to the declared vacancies were made with respect to the result published vide Directorate Letter No.A-34012/09/2016 dt. 16.09.2016 for LDC Examination, Inspector Post 2015-16 and in the order of merit. There is no system of waiting list and unfilled vacancies due to change of the selection years of one candidate carried forward to the following year as per the existing rules and provisions on the subject. 20. The case of Amit Kumar is also not similar with the case of Shri Praveen Chand Pant as the revised result was delivered due to deletion of some questions of LDCE for promotion to the cadre of Inspectors post for the relevant year 2012 after redrawing the merit list. 21. The Principle emerges from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thissur District Co-operative Bank. “When once the selection process is complete and appointment had been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the posts leaves the same. It must be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the appropriate rules should be taken. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma and Anr. (JT 2001 (9) SC 266)” 22. From the above facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited vs. Delson Ddavis (supra) which is further affirmed by the Hon’ble Court in the case of UOI & Ors. vs. G. Ramesh (supra), the balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicant. 23. As a result, OA is dismissed. 24. No order as to costs.” 34. It is correct that as per the advertisement, the number of vacancies were 03 in number for Jharkhand circle. The document upon which the respondent has relied upon which is in pursuance of the decision taken [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 11 based upon the order passed by the learned Tribunal pertaining to vacancy year 2014 and 2015-16 both. The decision was that initially when the candidature of Kumar Abhishek was rejected for the vacancy year 2014, then he moved to the learned Tribunal for consideration of his candidature and accordingly, the respondent was directed to consider the candidature and take final decision. But in the meanwhile, since new advertisement was published being No. A-34012/09/2016- DE dated 16.09.2016 and the vacancy upon which Kumar Abhishek was to be appointed for the vacancy year 2014 has been decided to be shifted to the vacancies in the year 2015- 16 as per the letter dated 20/21.02.2017 as annexed at Anx.-D and the number of vacancies gone upto 03, i.e., two for the vacancy year 2015-16 and 01 by carrying forward from for the vacancy year 2014 to that of the vacancy year 2015-16 due to non-consideration of the candidature of Kumar Abhishek. 35. 35. But, subsequent to the notification of the said advertisement, the respondent authorities have acted upon the order passed by the learned Tribunal and in compliance thereto, the said Kumar Abhishek was appointed because the vacancy which was carried forward for the vacancy year 2015-16 and for compliance of the Tribunal’s order, the respondent authorities have again taken a decision to reduce the number of vacancy from 03 to 02 for the purpose of appointment of the said Kumar Abhishek for the vacancy year 2014. 36. It is the document pertaining to the decision so taken by decreasing the number of vacancy to 03 to 02 although had not been brought on record before the Tribunal by the respondent rather this Court has passed an order [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 12 on consideration of the hearing made on behalf of the parties with respect to the consideration of the issue on the basis of the principle of accrual of right and has called upon the entire record in order to assess the issue as would be evident from the order dated 17.03.2026. The entire record was produced before this court. This Court has perused the entire record and found one document which had not been brought on record before the learned Tribunal, therefore, this Court had directed the learned counsel for the respondent to bring the document which is necessary for adjudication of the lis and accordingly, an affidavit was filed on 02.04.2026 appending the document showing the decision taken by the authority of reducing the number of vacancy from 03 to 02. 37. The question has been raised that before the Tribunal, the said document had not been produced and as such, it may not be considered. 38. This Court is of the view that since this Court is exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is by way of power of judicial review upon the order passed by the learned Tribunal as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261 but that does not mean that there may be any miscarriage of justice. 39. 39. The power which is to be exercised as per the position of law is to look into the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Tribunal only in a case error apparent on the face of the order or in a case of perversity of finding in exercise of power conferred under the power of judicial review as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph- [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 13 99 in the aforesaid judgment. The said paragraph is being referred as under: “99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323- B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.” 40. Even accepting the fact that the necessity of the document dated 20/21.02.2017 (Anx. – D) & Anx. - G was necessarily to be brought on record before the learned Tribunal. The question is that if certain document has not been brought before the learned Tribunal, can it not be considered by the High Court in order of substantial justice. 41. This Court is of the view that if certain document has not been brought before the learned Tribunal and it is required to be considered for the aforesaid purpose, if the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 14 Constitution of India has passed order calling upon the record regarding the relevance of certain document then, the document is necessarily to be considered for the purpose of adjudication of the lis. 42. Accordingly, this Court has considered the said document and found the subsequent policy decision taken by the respondent authority upon which the number of vacancy has been reduced from 03 to 02, it was in consequence of the compliance of the order passed by the learned Tribunal with respect to Kumar Abhishek who has been appointed by shifting the vacancy which was carried forward from the vacancy year 2014 to vacancy year 2015-16. For ready reference, the said document is being referred as under: “DEPARTMENT OF POSTS OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POSTMANSTER GENERAL, JHARKHAND CIRCLE, MEGHDOOT BHAWAN, DORANDA, RANCHI-834002 To, Shri G.M. Taneja, Asst. Director General (DE), Postal Directorate, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. No.:- R&E-2/IPOs Exam/2015-16/Cg.1 Subject : Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the Cadre Inspector Posts (66.66%) Departmental quota for the year 2015-16 held on 22nd & 23rd October, 2016. Reference: Postal Directorate, New Delhi letter no. A-34012/09/2016-DE dtd. 10/13.02.2017. Sir, With reference to Dte’s letter cited above on the above mentioned subject, final vacancy position for the said examination is furnished in the following format:- Vacancies for the period 01.01.2015 to 31.03.2016 Sl. No. Name of the Circle Vacancies informed Total UR SC ST 1. Jharkhand Circle 03 Nil Nil 03 Note: 01 vacancy under UR quota for the vacancy year 2014 has been carried over and added to the vacancy year 2015-16 in light of cancellation of result of Shri Sanjay Kumar, Roll No. 1201220034 communicated by the Postal Directorate vide letter no. [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 15 A-34013/07/2014-DE dated 28.07.2016. It is further intimated that Shri Kumar Abhishek, Roll No. 1201220021 appeared in Inspector Posts Exam 2014 has filed an OA No. 051/………/2016 in the Hon’ble CAT, Circuit Bench, Ranchi for his selection which is still pending in Hon’ble CAT. This has been approved by the Competent Authority. (G.C. Dey) Asstt. Director Postal Services (Rect) O/o the Chief Postmaster General Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi 834002.” 43. Now, coming to the merit position, admittedly the petitioner was at sl. no.4 and Kumar Abhishek was at sl. no.2. It is the admitted case that one vacancy under the UR quota for the vacancy year 2014 has been carried over and added to the vacancy year 2015-16 and as such, the merit list after shifting of Kumar Abhishek now comprised of only three candidates including the petitioner who ranks at sl. no.3. 44. The fact is also not in dispute that the other two candidates having scored more marks and being meritorious were placed above the petitioner, namely, Subhash Chandra Pandey and Uttam Kumar, as such, due to non- availability of the vacancy, the petitioner cannot be appointed. 45. The view which has been taken by the learned Tribunal regarding the accrual of right etc., is also of much importance that so long as the candidate is not being appointed, no right is being accrued. 46. This Court deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal position regarding the accrued/vested right and at what stage and how the same be done away. But before referring to the aforesaid judgment, it requires to refer the definition/meaning of vested/accrued right. 47. Rights are 'vested' when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 16 founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute vested rights. 48. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at page1397, the word 'vested' is defined as a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right, vested interest. 49. The word 'vested' is normally used where an immediate fixed right in present or future enjoyment in respect of a property is created. With the long usage the said word 'vest' has also acquired a meaning as "an absolute or indefeasible right". It had a 'legitimate' or "settled expectation" to obtain right to enjoy the property etc. Such "settled expectation" can be rendered impossible of fulfilment due to change in law by the legislature. Besides this, such a "settled expectation" or the so-called "vested right" cannot be countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be served by amendment of the law. 50. Thus, "vested right" is a right independent of any contingency. Such a right can arise from a contract, statute or by operation of law. A vested right can be taken away only if the law specifically or by necessary implication provide for such a course. 51. In the light of the definition of the "vested right", it is evident that right accrues to person or persons attached to an institution or building or anything whatsoever, meaning thereby, if an incumbent is claiming a vested right, he is to substantiate before the court of law that the right has been created in his favour by an order passed by the competent authority in accordance with law. [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 17 52. It is evident from the definition of the vested right that right would be said to be vested right, permanent and continuous in nature and if that be so, the question of prejudice or following of principles of natural justice will arise. 53. Further, it needs to refer herein that once the right has been accrued, the subsequent rule framed carving out the eligibility criteria will not be considered to be a reason to recall the benefit already granted due to the reason that a vested right has been created. Here, it is relevant to refer the definition of vested right as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh [(2014) 13 SCC 583] at paragraph 11, 12 and 13, which read hereunder as:- “11. The word “vested” is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) at p. 1563, as: “Vested.—fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are ‘vested’ when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest inproperty founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute ‘vested rights’.” 12. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at p. 1397, “vested” is defined as law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested interest. 13. Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and it cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned. Vested right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless an accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy decision/scheme could be changed.” 54. Further, the Court having the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to scrutinize the process of selection on the issue of its fairness and transparency in order to have the object of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. [2026:JHHC:11643-DB] Page | 18 55. This Court, on consideration of the entire document and the averment made in the affidavit which is based upon the document, is of the view that whatever process has been followed, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. 56. Law is well settled that if there is no infirmity in the process of selection and if it does not suffer from vice of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in such circumstances, there cannot be any interference in the decision so taken by the authority. Exactly the situation herein is as per the discussion made hereinabove. 57. This Court, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances as referred hereinabove, is of the view that the order impugned needs no interference. 58. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and stands dismissed. 59. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree, (Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 21st April, 2026 Saurabh/- A.F.R. Uploaded on 22.04.2026