- (1.) The petitioners, by filing the present petition, have prayed for issue of mandamus for cancellation of the resolution and approval thereof, whereby the select list including the name of the petitioners for the appointment of the Accounts Officer in the respondent's department was cancelled. The petitioners applied for the appointment on the post of Accounts Officer, in response to the advertisement Annexure1 dated 12.11.2004, made by the respondents, for 31 posts of Accounts Officer. The petitioners applied for their appointment and after the test and the interview held by the respondents, they were declared successful and their name found place in the select list, Annexure 2 published on 19.10.2005. The petitioners thereafter waited for the appointment letter for a reasonable time and when they did not receive any response, they filed a writ petition no. 65306 of 2006 before this Court. This writ petition was finally disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation within a period of three months in the matter of issuance of appointment letter. Despite the direction of this Court the representation of the petitioners was not decided within the stipulated period. The petitioners then filed the contempt petition no. 3543 of 2007, which was decided in terms of the compliance affidavit on behalf of the respondents that, "the appointment to the post of accounts officer is under administrative consideration and the candidates will be intimated accordingly in due course." The petitioners thereafter approached the respondents by way of seeking information under the right of information. After a strenuous exercise they were informed that by way of the resolution of the respondent board, the entire examination and the select list has been cancelled. By way of the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the resolution of the respondent board canceling the examination and for the issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners.
(2.) On behalf of the respondents vide the counter affidavit, dated 27.9.2011, it was put forth that the respondent Board has got unfettered powers to vary the number of appointments and under the exercise of such powers they have cancelled the examination and the select list. No ground for the cancellation of the examination or the select list was at all required to be mentioned. This Court having observed such a situation, on 14.2.2012 passed following order, "Though the petitioners do not have indefeasible right for appointment in pursuance of the select list, the respondent corporation must disclose valid reasons for which selection was cancelled."
(3.) With this observation the Court granted time to the respondents to file counter affidavit giving the reasons for the cancellation of selection while annexing the resolution of the Board. In compliance to the orders of the Court the respondents have filed the supplementary counter affidavit annexing the resolution of the board dated 3rd November 2008, along with its approval dated 29.12.2008. It has also been mentioned that the information about the cancellation of the examination was widely published in the newspapers and the same was also available on the website of the respondents. However no ground for the cancellation of the selection and the select list was mentioned in this supplementary counter affidavit. On behalf of the petitioners the affidavits of the respondents have been controverted.;