Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Meera Tiwari vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10778
1 WP-3254-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3254 of 2013
SMT.MEERA TIWARI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Alok Bandhu Shrivastava, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Smrati Sharma, Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
On the earlier date of hearing, Government Advocate was directed to
seek instruction about the current position regarding appointment/counselling
as per Annexure P-1 dated 27.06.2012.
2. Counsel for respondent/State submitted that the entire selection
procedure has already been cancelled and thereafter no counselling has been
conducted by respondents.
3. It is well established principle of law that a selected candidate has no
right to seek appointment.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh
Vs. Dilbagh Singh and Others reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 has held as
under:
“12. If we have regard to the above enunciation
that a candidate who finds a place in the select list
as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil
post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to beSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/1/2026
6:28:27 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:107782 WP-3254-2013
appointed in such post in the absence of any
specific rule entitling him for such appointment
and he could be aggrieved by his
nonappointment only when the
Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no
bona fide reasons, it follows as a
necessary concomitant that such candidate even if
has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in
such posts due to his name finding a place in the
select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a
right to be heard before such select list is cancelled
for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily.
In the instant case, when the Chandigarh
Administration which received the complaints
about the unfair and injudicious manner in
which select list of candidates for appointment as
conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection
Board constituted for the purpose, found those
complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got
made in that regard, we are unable to find that the
Chandigarh Administration had acted either
arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons
in cancelling such dubious select list. Hence, the
contentions of the learned counsel for
the respondents as to the sustainability of the
judgment of CAT under appeal on the ground of
non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the
respondents (candidates in the select list) is a
misconceived one and is consequently rejected.”
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of
India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 has held as under:
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of
vacancies are notified for appointment
and adequate number of candidates are found fit,
the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible
right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately
denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts
to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply
for recruitment and on their selection they do not
acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant
recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no
legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/1/2026
6:28:27 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10778
3 WP-3254-2013
However, it does not mean that the State has the
licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The
decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken
bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if
the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State
is bound to respect the comparative merit of the
candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and
no discrimination can be permitted. This correct
position has been consistently followed by this
Court, and we do not find any discordant note in
the decisions in State of Haryana v.
Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 :
1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165],
Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4
SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] , or Jatinder
Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 :
1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] . “
6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. And Others Vs.
Rajkumar Sharma And Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 330 has held as
under:
“14. Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a
matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidate’s name
in the list does not confer any right to be selected,
even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled
and the candidates concerned cannot claim that
they have been given a hostile discrimination. (See
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC
47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95 :
AIR 1991 SC 1612] ; Asha Kaul v. State of J&K
[(1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 :
(1993) 24 ATC 576] ; Union of India v. S.S. Uppal
[(1996) 2 SCC 168 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 438 :
(1996) 32 ATC 668 : AIR 1996 SC 2340] ;
Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India [(1996) 10
SCC 742 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 364] ; Bihar Public
Service Commission v. State of Bihar [(1997) 3
SCC 198 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 775 : AIR 1997
SC 2280] ; Syndicate Bank v. Shankar Paul
[(1997) 6 SCC 584 : AIR 1997 SC 3091] ; Vice-
Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand
Prakash Mishra [(1997) 10 SCC 264 : 1997
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/1/2026
6:28:27 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10778
4 WP-3254-2013
SCC (L&S) 1265] ; Punjab SEB v. Seema [1999
SCC (L&S) 629] ; All India SC & ST Employees’
Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen [(2001) 6 SCC 380 : AIR
2001 SC 1851] ; Vinodan T. v. University of
Calicut [(2002) 4 SCC 726 : 2002 SCC (L&S)
606] ; S. Renuka v. State of A.P. [(2002) 5 SCC
195 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 689 : AIR 2002 SC 1523]
and Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar
[(2004) 9 SCC 100 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 715 : AIR
2003 SC 4248] .)
15. Even if in some cases appointments have been
made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer
any right on another person. Article 14 of the
Constitution does not envisage negative equality,
and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be
forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See Sneh
Prabha v. State of U.P. [(1996) 7 SCC 426 : AIR
1996 SC 540] ; Secy., Jaipur Development
Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 35] ;
State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [(1997)
3 SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 801]; Faridabad
C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G., Health Services [(1997)
7 SCC 752]; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v.
Sampuran Singh [(1999) 3 SCC 494 : AIR 1999
SC 1347] ; State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal
[(1999) 9 SCC 240 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171] ;
Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi [(2003) 3
SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] ; Union of India
v. International Trading Co. [(2003) 5 SCC 437]
and Kastha Niwarak Grihnirman Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit v. President, Indore
Development Authority [(2006) 2 SCC 604 : JT
(2006) 2 SC 259] .)”
7. The Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Balu And Another Vs. State
of Kerala And Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479 has held as under:
“12. There is another aspect of the matter which
cannot also be lost sight of. A person does not
acquire a legal right to be appointed only because
his name appears in the select list. (See Pitta
Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti [(2006)
10 SCC 261 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 92] .) TheSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/1/2026
6:28:27 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:107785 WP-3254-2013
State as an employer has a right to fill up all the
posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination
is made in regard to the filling up of the vacancies
or an arbitrariness is committed, the candidate
concerned will have no legal right for obtaining a
writ of or in the nature of mandamus. (See
Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar [(2004) 9
SCC 100: 2004 SCC (L&S) 715] .) In Shankarsan
Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47: 1991
SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95]
a Constitution Bench of this Court held: (SCC pp.
50-51, para 7)“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of
vacancies are notified for appointment and
adequate number of candidates are found fit,
the successful candidates acquire
an indefeasible right to be appointed which
cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the
notification merely amounts to an invitation
to qualified candidates to apply for
recruitment and on their selection they do
not acquire any right to the post. Unless the
relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the
State is under no legal duty to fill up all or
any of the vacancies. However, it does not
mean that the State has the licence of
acting in an arbitrary manner. The
decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be
taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And
if the vacancies or any of them are filled up,
the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as
reflected at the recruitment test, and
no discrimination can be permitted.”
13. In State of Haryana v. Subash Chander
Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S)
488] this Court held: (SCC p. 226, paras 10-11)
“10. … The mere fact that a candidate’s
name appears in the list will not entitle him
to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed,
if the State Government while making the
selection for appointment had departed from
the ranking given in the list, there would
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/1/2026
6:28:27 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10778
6 WP-3254-2013
have been a legitimate grievance on the
ground that the State Government
had departed from the rules in this respect. …
11. It must be remembered that the petition is
for a mandamus. This Court has pointed out
in Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v.
Nalanda College [AIR 1962 SC 1210] that
in order that mandamus may issue to compel
an authority to do something, it must be
shown that the statute imposes a legal duty
on that authority and the aggrieved party has
a legal right under the statute to enforce
its performance. Since there is no legal duty
on the State Government to appoint all the 15
persons who are in the list and the petitioners
have no legal right under the rules to
enforce its performance the petition is
clearly misconceived.”
14. In Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah
Zangiti [(2006) 10 SCC 261 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S)
92] this Court held: (SCC p. 273, para 32)
“32. … A candidate does not have any legal
right to be appointed. He in terms of Article
16 of the Constitution of India has only a
right to be considered
therefor. Consideration of the case of
an individual candidate although ordinarily is
required to be made in terms of the extant
rules but strict adherence thereto would
be necessary in a case where the
rules operate only to the disadvantage of the
candidates concerned and not otherwise.”
15. In State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Chopra [(2007)
8 SCC 161 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 837] this Court
held: (SCC pp. 164- 65, paras 9 and 11)
“9. Recruitment for teachers in the State of
Rajasthan is admittedly governed by the
statutory rules. All recruitments, therefore,
are required to be made in terms thereof.
Although Rule 9(3) of the Rules does not
specifically provide for the period for which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/1/2026
6:28:27 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10778
7 WP-3254-2013
the merit list shall remain valid but the intent
of the legislature is absolutely clear as
vacancies have to be determined only once in
a year. Vacancies which arose in
the subsequent years could be filled up from
the select list prepared in the previous year
and not in other manner. Even otherwise, in
absence of any rule, ordinary period
of validity of select list should be one year.
In State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra
[(2006) 12 SCC 561 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S)
132] this Court opined: (SCC p. 564, para 9)
‘9. In the aforementioned situation, in
our opinion, he did not have any legal
right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it
is well known, remains valid for a year.
Once it lapses, unless an appropriate
order is issued by the State, no
appointment can be made out of the
said panel.’
It was further held: (Amrendra Kumar case
[(2006) 12 SCC 561 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S)
132] , SCC p. 565, para 13)
’13. The decisions noticed hereinbefore
are authorities for the proposition that
even the wait list must be acted
upon having regard to the terms of the
advertisement and in any event cannot
remain operative beyond the prescribed
period.’ ***
11. It is well-settled principle of law that
even selected candidates do not have legal
right in this behalf. (See Shankarsan Dash v.
Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95] and
Asha Kaul v. State of J&K [(1993) 2 SCC
573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 (1993) 24 ATC
576] .)”
16. Furthermore, the rank list was valid for a
period of three years. Its validity expired on 5-6-
2000. Another select list was published for theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/1/2026
6:28:27 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:107788 WP-3254-2013
period from 16-9-2002 to 15-9-2005. Vacancies in
terms of the said select list have also been filled
up.
17. It is also well-settled principle of law that
“delay defeats equity”. The Government Order
was issued on 15-1-2002. The appellants did not
file any writ application questioning the legality
and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions
filed by others were allowed and the State of
Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they
impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is
now a trite law that where the writ petitioner
approaches the High Court after a long delay,
reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the
ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact
that they are similarly situated to the other
candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment.
It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction
to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint
the appellants at this stage. In NDMC v. Pan Singh
[(2007) 9 SCC 278 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 398]
this Court held: (SCC p. 283, para 16)“16. There is another aspect of the matter
which cannot be lost sight of. The
respondents herein filed a writ petition after
17 years. They did not agitate their
grievances for a long time. They, as noticed
herein, did not claim parity with the 17
workmen at the earliest possible
opportunity. They did not implead
themselves as parties even in the reference
made by the State before the Industrial
Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982,
those employees who were employed or who
were recruited after the cut-off date have
been granted the said scale of pay. After such
a long time, therefore, the writ petitions
could not have been entertained even if they
are similarly situated. It is trite that the
discretionary jurisdiction may not be
exercised in favour of those who approach
the court after a long time. Delay and laches
are relevant factors for exercise of equitable
jurisdiction.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/1/2026
6:28:27 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10778
9 WP-3254-2013
(See also Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat
Petroleum Corpn. [(2009) 1 SCC 297 :
(2008) 15 Scale 67] at SCC p. 302, para
17.)””
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors Vs.
Rajasthan High Court & Ors decided on 07.11.2024 in Civil Appeal
No.2634 of 2013 has held as under:-
“42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following
terms:
(1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the
advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up
of vacancies;
(2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List,
notified at the commencement of the recruitment process,
cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process
unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which
is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such
change is permissible under the extant Rules or the
advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement
of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-
arbitrariness;
(3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law
and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander
Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with
the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K.
Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the
Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether
different issues;
(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise
appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to
its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is
transparent, non-discriminatory/ nonarbitrary and has a
rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
(5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the
recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility.
However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent,
administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
(6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/1/2026
6:28:27 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10778
10 WP-3254-2013
appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide
reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if
vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot
arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of
consideration in the select list.”
9. Considering the aforesaid, petitioner is not having any right for
appointment merely on the basis of his name appeared in the selection list.
Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to file a fresh petition if anyone has been appointed on the basis of
aforesaid selection process.
10. Dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
“R”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/1/2026
6:28:27 PM
