The Delhi High Court has upheld the Ministry of Defence's decision to cancel the recruitment process for the post of Civilian Assistant Security Officer (CASO), ruling that even a candidate who tops the merit list does not acquire an enforceable right to appointment unless a formal appointment order is issued. The Court dismissed a petition filed by retired Subedar Major Ashok Kumar Verma, who challenged the cancellation after emerging as the highest-ranked candidate in the selection process.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Subedar Major Ashok Kumar Verma (Retd.), retired from the Indian Army on 31 December 2016. Before his retirement, he applied for one of three CASO posts advertised by the Ministry of Defence in March 2016 under the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA). The recruitment was meant for Junior Commissioned Officers and equivalent personnel eligible for re-employment.
Verma was called for an interview in May 2018 and participated in the selection process. The records showed that three candidates were selected, with Verma securing the highest marks among them. However, no appointment letters were issued because the Ministry became entangled in an administrative dispute over which authority was competent to approve the Selection Committee's recommendations.
The file continued moving between different departments of the Ministry for several months without a final decision. Eventually, on 27 February 2019, the Joint Secretary (Army) decided that, considering the prolonged delay, it would be preferable to restart the recruitment process from the beginning in the interest of transparency and equal opportunity. The earlier recruitment was formally cancelled in September 2019.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Verma challenged the cancellation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), but the Tribunal dismissed his application. He then approached the Delhi High Court seeking to overturn both the CAT's decision and the cancellation of the recruitment process.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner argued that he had legitimately expected to receive the appointment after successfully clearing the entire recruitment process and securing the highest marks. He contended that the Ministry's internal administrative confusion should not deprive him of employment.
He also claimed that the fresh recruitment notification issued later was almost identical to the original advertisement, suggesting that the cancellation lacked genuine justification and reflected arbitrary decision-making. According to him, the Tribunal had wrongly relied on settled principles relating to recruitment without considering the specific facts of his case.
Ministry of Defence's Stand
The Ministry defended its decision by stating that the recruitment process had been cancelled for valid administrative reasons before any appointment orders were issued.
It argued that once the recruitment itself stood cancelled, the merit list ceased to have any legal effect. The Ministry further pointed out that the petitioner had also become ineligible to participate in the fresh recruitment because he no longer satisfied the prescribed eligibility conditions under the Recruitment Rules.
Court's Observations
After examining the records, the Division Bench observed that while the petitioner had undoubtedly topped the merit list, no appointment order had ever been issued in his favour.
Referring to established Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that inclusion in a select list does not create an indefeasible or vested right to appointment. Public authorities retain the discretion not to fill vacancies or even cancel a recruitment process, provided the decision is bona fide and not arbitrary.
The bench observed,
"The Petitioner did not acquire any vested or enforceable right to appointment in the absence of the issuance of an appointment order."
The Court found that the delay in the recruitment process resulted from genuine administrative uncertainty regarding the competent authority required to approve the Selection Committee's recommendations. It noted that the file had remained pending for nearly three years because of differing views within the Ministry.
The judges further observed,
"The cancellation was based on relevant considerations, including the lapse of time and administrative uncertainty, and is neither arbitrary nor mala fide."
The Bench also noted that the Ministry had not abandoned recruitment altogether. Instead, it had issued a fresh notification with substantially identical eligibility conditions, indicating its intention to conduct a fair and transparent recruitment process rather than deny appointments arbitrarily.
Court's Decision
While acknowledging that the petitioner had undergone the complete selection process and secured the highest position in the merit list, the Court observed that such circumstances could not override settled legal principles governing public recruitment.
Finding no arbitrariness, mala fides, or legal infirmity in the Ministry's decision or in the CAT's order, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. It upheld the Tribunal's decision dated 18 November 2019, confirmed the validity of the recruitment cancellation, and declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
There was no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Subedar Major Ashok Kumar Verma (Retd.) v. Ministry of Defence & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 12661/2019
Judge: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Decision Date: 01 July 2026
