State cannot arbitrarily halt recruitment- SC orders appointment of eligible Himachal medical officers

New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently granted relief to candidates for the posts of Medical Officers in Himachal Pradesh in the 2021 recruitment process, who were denied appointment despite being found eligible.

Granting relief to these doctors, who approached the top court bench, the Apex Court bench asked the State to issue fresh appointment orders, observing that while inclusion in a select list does not automatically create an indefeasible right to appointment, the State cannot arbitrarily curtail a recruitment process midway without a bona fide and rational explanation.

The Apex Court bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi made these observations while considering a batch of appeals concerning recruitment to contractual posts of Medical Officers in the Health and Family Welfare Department. 

However, the top court bench has limited the benefit of the judgment only to those candidates from the list, who had approached the Supreme Court bench.

"The recruitment process resulted in one common list of 76 eligible candidates pursuant to the walk-in interview held on 07.12.2021. However, we do not consider it appropriate to extend relief to all persons included in the said list, including those who have not approached this Court. Therefore, the benefit of the present judgment shall, therefore, be confined to such candidates who are parties before this Court in the present batch of appeals and whose names are included in the list of 76 eligible candidates," ordered the Apex Court bench.

"The State of Himachal Pradesh and the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, shall issue fresh appointment orders to such candidates, subject to verification of eligibility, educational qualifications, registration, documents, medical fitness, character antecedents and other formal requirements applicable to appointment to the post of Medical Officer on contract basis. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment," it further directed.

Background: 

Back in November 2021, the Himachal Pradesh Government had initiated a walk-in-interview process for recruitment in the posts of Medical Officers. Even though the number of vacancies was not specified in the recruitment notice, the process was preceded by departmental communications referring to a larger requirement of Medical Officers.

Around 405 candidates appeared in the walk-in-interviews held on December 07, 2021. Consequently, the Selection Committees prepared a list of 76 eligible candidates. However, only the first 43 candidates received appointment letters. Therefore, the remaining eligible candidates whose names were included in the list were not offered appointment.

It was the State's stand that although the earlier communication referred to 81 posts, the correct vacancy position was subsequently clarified. According to the State, only 24 existing vacancies were available at the relevant time, and appointments were made to 43 candidates by taking into account 19 anticipated vacancies. The State also relied upon the position that surplus Medical Officers were available and that the subsequent vacancies could not be connected with the process initiated pursuant to the notice dated 29.11.2021.

On the other hand, the candidates asserted that the recruitment process had been initiated for a larger number of posts. For this, they relied on the communication dated 23.11.2021, a statement allegedly made by the Himachal Pradesh Health Minister in the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha on 13.12.2021, and the reply furnished under the RTI Act.

They further relied upon the subsequent steps taken by the State for filling up 144 posts and thereafter 300 posts of Medical Officers to contend that the restriction of appointments to only 43 candidates was arbitrary.

Initially, when the matter reached the Himachal Pradesh High Court, it dismissed the plea holding that the process initiated pursuant to the notice dated 29.11.2021 had concluded with the appointment of 43 candidates and that the petitioners therein could not claim appointment against the 144 posts which were subsequently sought to be filled.

Later, when two other sets of candidates approached the High Court, it allowed the pleas, holding that the State had failed to furnish a justifiable reason for restricting appointments to the first 43 candidates when the material on record indicated that a larger number of posts was available and when further posts of Medical Officers were sought to be filled shortly thereafter. The High Court accordingly directed the State to offer appointment letters to the writ petitioners therein within a period of two weeks. The Court had defended the earlier dismissal on the ground that the issue in that case related to the holding of a written test for filling up the posts.

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.11.2022 and the respective review orders, the State and the DHS have approached the Supreme Court. The petitioners, whose plea was dismissed by the High Court, also approached the top court bench.

While issuing notice in the State appeals, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned orders of the High Court, while clarifying that status quo shall be maintained with respect to such persons to whom appointment letters had already been issued pursuant to the impugned order and who had joined.

Observations by Supreme Court: 

The Apex Court observed that the legal question was whether the State was justified in restricting appointments to 43 candidates from the list of 76 eligible candidates prepared based on the walk-in interview held on 07.12.2021, or whether the remaining eligible candidates were also entitled to be considered for appointment in the same process.

While clarifying the governing legal position in such matters, the bench observed, "It is true that mere inclusion of a candidate in a select list, merit list or eligibility list does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The same has been upheld by the decision of the Constitution Bench of Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47..."

Referring to the judgment, the bench noted that a selected candidate cannot claim appointment as a matter of right merely because his or her name appears in a list. It also observed that the State does not thereby acquire a licence to act arbitrarily.

"The absence of an indefeasible right in the candidate does not mean the absence of a constitutional obligation on the State. The decision not to proceed with appointments, or to stop appointments at a particular stage, must be bona fide, rational and founded on appropriate reasons," observed the Supreme Court bench.

The bench observed that the same principle was reiterated by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Others v. South East Central Railway and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 798

"The law, therefore, does not proceed on a rigid or onesided footing. It does not say that every candidate included in a list must necessarily be appointed. Equally, it does not say that the State may, after undertaking a recruitment process and preparing a list, stop the process without any reasonable explanation. The governing test is one of fairness, bona fides and non-arbitrariness," held the Court.

It also referred to the judgment in the case of Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, where the Supreme Court emphasized that the State, being a model employer, is saddled with a heightened obligation to act with fairness, probity and candour. The State does not shed its constitutional character when it acts as an employer. Its decisions in the field of employment must therefore be tested not merely by administrative convenience, but also by the standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Referring to this, the bench noted, "This principle is of significance in the present case. The doctrine that a selected candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment cannot be converted into a shield against judicial scrutiny. It only means that appointment does not follow automatically from inclusion in a list. It does not mean that the State may invite candidates, conduct a process, prepare a list, make appointments from that list up to a particular point, and thereafter stop without a coherent and justifiable explanation."

"Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not confined only to cases of direct discrimination. It strikes equally at arbitrary State action. If the State treats similarly situated candidates differently, the distinction must rest on a rational basis. If the State stops a recruitment process midway, the reason must be bona fide and capable of being explained. Administrative expressions such as vacancy position, surplus staff, cadre adjustment or policy decision cannot by themselves immunise the action from constitutional scrutiny. The Court is entitled to examine whether such explanation is real and reasonable, or merely a formal answer to an otherwise arbitrary course of action," it further observed.

The Court noted that the distinction, therefore, is between a right to appointment and a right to fair treatment. "A candidate included in a list may not be able to demand appointment as a matter of course. However, such candidate is certainly entitled to insist that the discretion of the State be exercised in a fair, reasoned and non-arbitrary manner. The absence of a vested right to appointment cannot be equated with an absence of constitutional protection. The former concerns the final relief which may be claimed by a candidate. The latter concerns the standard by which State action must be judged," observed the bench.

"The prevailing principle, therefore, is that the State’s discretion in matters of public employment is wide, but not unguided. Decisions relating to the number of posts to be filled, the assessment of vacancies, and the continuation or closure of a recruitment process ordinarily belong to the executive domain. Yet, when such decisions are questioned on the ground of arbitrariness, the State must be able to demonstrate a coherent, bona fide and non-discriminatory basis for its action. It is in the light of this legal position that the facts of the present case are required to be examined," it held.

With respect to the present case, the bench observed that while the notice did not specify the exact number of posts, it did not confine the process to 43 posts either.

The process was initiated for appointment of Medical Officers on contract basis against vacant posts, and it was preceded by the communication dated 23.11.2021 which, as noticed by the High Court, referred to 81 vacant posts of Medical Officers. The walk-in interview was thereafter held on 07.12.2021.

The Court also referred to the communication dated 31.12.2021 forwarded by the Director of Health Services to the Secretary (Health), which recorded the outcome of the process stating, "In continuation of this Directorate letter of even number dated 8.12.2021 on the subject cited above and to submit that walk-in-interview for the post of Medical Officers on contract basis had been fixed on 7.12.2021 at SH&FW TC Parimahal and 405 Medical Officers have appeared ... in the said interview in which 76 Medical Officers found eligible as per the list submitted by the committees constituted for the purpose...”

Referring to this, the bench observed, "Thus, the process did not end in an informal or incomplete exercise. A walk-in interview was actually conducted. A large number of candidates participated. The Selection Committees found 76 candidates eligible. Once such a list had been prepared, the State was required to adopt a fair and consistent course in making appointments from that list."

The Court noted that the State tried to justify the restriction of appointments to 43 candidates by relying on the communication dated 08.12.2021 and by stating that only 24 vacancies were available, which later stood reduced to 23 on account of one appointment made pursuant to an order of the High Court, and that 20 anticipated vacancies were also taken into account. The stand, therefore, is that 43 appointments exhausted the vacancies available for the said process, noted the Court.

"The difficulty with this explanation is that it does not stand alone in the record. Soon thereafter, by communication dated 12.04.2022, the Government itself conveyed approval for creation and filling up of 144 posts of Medical Officers," it observed.

While the bench noted that the subsequent creation or filling up of 144 posts cannot automatically be treated as part of the earlier process initiated by the notice dated 29.11.2021, it also observed that "Subsequent vacancies ordinarily cannot be filled from an earlier list unless the rules, the advertisement or the nature of the process so permits. However, the subsequent material is relevant for a limited but important purpose. It tests the credibility and consistency of the State’s explanation that no real requirement existed beyond 43 appointments."

"The same conclusion is reinforced by the later decision of the State to fill up 300 posts of Medical Officers. The High Court noticed that these steps were taken within a short period after the State had declined to appoint candidates beyond serial number 43 from the list of 76 eligible candidates. The proximity of these developments could not have been ignored while examining whether the State had acted with fairness and coherence," noted the bench.

Accordingly, the bench concluded that in these circumstances, the explanation offered by the State for stopping the process at 43 appointments does not satisfy the standard of fairness and non-arbitrariness required under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Holding that the State was not justified in restricting the process to 43 appointments, the bench observed that the relief must be moulded in a manner which is fair, uniform and confined to the candidates who are before this Court in the present batch of appeals.

However, it confined the benefit of the judgment to such candidates who are parties before the Supreme Court in the present batch of appeals and whose names were included in the list of 76 eligible candidates.

"This would include the writ petitioners in CWP Nos. 1393 and 2606 of 2022, who are respondents in the State appeals, and the appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21745-21746 of 2023, namely, Dr. *** and others, to the extent they are before this Court and continue to pursue relief. The benefit of this judgment shall not extend to any candidate who is not before this Court or who has chosen not to pursue relief in these proceedings," it clarified.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, to issue fresh appointment orders to such candidates, subject to verification of eligibility, educational qualifications, registration, documents, medical fitness, character antecedents and other formal requirements applicable to appointment to the post of Medical Officer on contract basis. The bench has ordered the State to complete the exercise within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

"The inter se seniority of all candidates appointed pursuant to the present judgment, including the respondents in the State appeals and the appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21745-21746 of 2023, shall be governed by their respective position in the original list of 76 eligible candidates prepared pursuant to the walk-in interview held on 07.12.2021. No candidate shall claim seniority or any other service advantage merely on the basis of earlier joining pursuant to the judgment dated 17.11.2022 passed by the High Court," clarified the bench.

"It is clarified that all such appointments shall operate prospectively from the date of issuance of fresh appointment orders pursuant to this judgment. No candidate shall be entitled to claim back wages, retrospective seniority or any other monetary benefit for the period prior to such fresh appointment merely on the basis of inclusion in the list of 76 eligible candidates or on the basis of any order passed by the High Court. However, salary or remuneration already paid to any candidate for actual service rendered pursuant to the orders of the High Court shall not be recovered," it added.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/29/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-aishwarya-thakur-350772.pdf

Also Read: SC issues interim directions for robust uniform trauma care framework